On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 6:47 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 12:52 AM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 4:11 AM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 1:33 AM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Thanks Jeff, as well as everyone else who contributed reviews and feedback. > > > > > > > > I've pulled this into a working branch and I'll be merging it with the > > > > other sidtab patches before posting it to a "next-queue" branch for > > > > review later this week. When done, I'll send a note to the list, as > > > > well as the relevant patch authors; your help in reviewing the merge > > > > would be greatly appreciated. > > > > > > I tried doing the merge on my own here [1], you can use it as a sanity > > > check if we came to the same/similar result. I based it off your > > > existing next-queue, which contains only Jeff's patch at the time of > > > writing. I only build-tested it so far. > > > > Thanks, that was a good sanity check. There are some minor diffs from > > what I ended up with, but nothing substantive that I can see. > > > > Although I'll be honest, the merge wasn't as bad as I thought it would > > be; most of the fuzz was simply due shuffling and renaming of data > > structures, which generally isn't too bad. Although I'm still > > building the kernel to test it, so let's see if that statement still > > holds (although it looks like it passed Stephen's testing). ;) > > > > If you haven't noticed already, the merge currently lives in the > > selinux/next-queue branch; if you notice anything off, feel free to > > send a fixup patch. > > It looks OK semantically when compared to my merge. I only see > reordering/comment/whitespace differences. Thanks for the double check. Unfortunately my kernel build locks my test VM in early boot; it appears to be non-SELinux related and since the test build is based on selinux/next+patches (which is based off v5.4-rc1) I imagine there might be some unrelated problems in the build. I'm going to rebase my test build to Linus' current and try this again. > > > Note that there are two whitespace cleanups included in the string > > > cache commit that I intuitively did while resolving the merge > > > conflicts. You might want to move those to the first commit or just > > > ignore them. > > > > When looking at the combined diff between the two sidtab patches and > > comparing it to your merge I did make a few additional small cosmetic > > tweaks. Assuming the testing goes well, I'll probably go over > > everything one more time to make sure the style looks okay, but today > > I was focusing more on the correctness. > > The whitespace misalignment introduced by Jeff's patch is still there > in your branch. Personally, I'd prefer that we fix them now rather > than deferring it to a future patch, because it seems that no one ever > has time to bother sending whitespace fixup patches :) But I'll > understand it if you prefer not to touch it more than necessary, so I > won't fight about this further. Like I said, I only quickly scanned the combined diff for style problems so it doesn't surprise me that there are still some issues. I'll give it a closer look once I can get a kernel build passing all the tests. As an aside, I keep debating doing a big style-fix patch (likely automated via astyle or similar, likely with some additional fixes by hand, and passed through checkpatch.pl) after one of the -rc1 rebases to clean up all these little things that have crept into the code over the years. I dislike the idea of the churn that would likely bring, but it should make life a little bit better, and help cut down on the trivial "checkpatch patches" we get from time to time (although that really hasn't been too bad of an issue). -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
