Paul Moore wrote:
On Monday 08 December 2008 4:16:24 pm James Morris wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008, Paul Moore wrote:
James, is the security-testing tree rebased regularly or is
suitable to back a tree against?
No, it doesn't get rebased.
Okay, experiment time. I think I managed to pull from all the right
spots, merge everything appropriately and end up with a security/
directory that builds so I pushed it back out to the lblnet-2.6_next
tree. I'm not quite sure the proper etiquette here but I had to fix
Casey's patch a bit since it would apply cleanly; Casey if you could
take a look I would appreciate it (it isn't exactly like what Stephen
posted earlier but it is pretty darn close).
The Smack Verification Laboratory reports that lblnet-2.6_next is
working as expected for UDP and TCP.
If so, I can rebase the lblnet-2.6_next tree
against security-testing to resolve the conflict ...
Ok, and I can carry your patches in there if necessary.
I would like to figure out to make this work as it is likely to happen
again at some point in the future, but if I can't get it working
quickly I may punt on it and ask you to pull in the patches.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
