On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 8:10 AM Stephen Smalley <stephen.smalley.work@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Unfortunately I need to re-base it again and manually fix conflicts > with my patch to avoid deferencing the policy prior to initialization. > And I'll need to do it again when/if the patch to convert the policy > rwlock to rcu lands. So you might want to wait. I'm starting to > wonder if the first patch in the series to rename selinux_state/state > to selinux_ns/ns throughout is a mistake because it produces a lot of > unnecessary conflicts. Originally I did it because that was the > original naming since the encapsulation started to support namespacing > and then I did a mass rename to selinux_state/state for upstreaming > since I wasn't yet upstreaming the actual namespace support. Renaming > it back again reduces conflicts in the later patches but makes the > first one a pain. But if I just do a mass rename on all the later > patches then I can drop the first one and avoid these unnecessary > conflicts. Thoughts? I agree, the first patch is the one that always causes me the most pain; considering the work-in-progress state of the patches I think it would make the most sense to drop that initial cosmetic patch for now and we can always reinstate it at the end when this work finally lands. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
