Hi all, On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 10:48:27 +1000 (EST) James Morris <jmorris@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, Steve French wrote: > > > makes sense - do we want this going through the cifs tree or as part > > of the xattr change mentioned below. > > Should be fine to go into the CIFS tree, as long as that is in -next. Except then that could leave Linus' tree broken during the next merge window depending on the order he merges the cifs and security-testing trees. Unless that patch is sent to Linus as a fix patch before the next merge window, of course. I will add this patch as a merge fixup to the merge of the security-testing tree for today. And will remove my copy when one of the trees gets fixed. James: maybe I should change the name of your tree in -next to just "security"? -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Attachment:
pgp3w_t9RmGgY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
