On 07/28/2014 04:42 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 4:34 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 07/28/2014 04:29 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 10:59 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On 07/23/2014 12:20 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It looks like patches 1-4 have landed here: >>>>> >>>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git/log/?h=seccomp/fastpath >>>>> >>>>> hpa, what's the route forward for the x86 part? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I guess I should discuss this with Kees to figure out what makes most >>>> sense. In the meantime, could you address Oleg's question? >>> >>> Since the x86 parts depend on the seccomp parts, I'm happy if you >>> carry them instead of having them land from my tree. Otherwise I'm >>> open to how to coordinate timing. >>> >> >> You mean for me to carry the seccomp part as well? > > If that makes sense as far as the coordination, that's fine with me. > Otherwise I'm not sure how x86 can build without having the seccomp > changes in your tree. > Exactly. What I guess I'll do is set up a separate tip branch for this, pull your branch into it, and then put the x86 patches on top. Does that make sense for everyone? -hpa
