On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 8:13 PM Paul Moore <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I felt I addressed that in the pull request cover letter, although it
> appears not in a way that you found adequate.
Yeah, it's actually quite adequate, but I wasn't seeing it.
Going back, I see that
"The additional audit callouts and LSM hooks were done in
conjunction with the io-uring folks, based on conversations and RFC
patches earlier in the year"
So yeah, it was there, and I missed it. My bad.
It would have been good to have a link to said discussions in the
commits, or even just a "cc:" or whatever so that I see that the
proper people were aware of it.
Partly just for posterity, partly simply because that's actually what
I look at when doing conflict resolution.
I do obviously go back to the original email later to see if you then
had an example resolution (which I'll then compare against what I did
to see that I didn't miss anything), and to complete the commit
message. But in this case I didn't even get past the conflict when I
started going "but but but.."
> I felt the comment in the pull request was sufficient, however based
> on your response it clearly isn't. Would you like me to edit the
> commits to add various discussion tags, is this follow-up sufficient,
> or would you like me to do something else?
This follow-up was sufficient. In fact, the original should have been
sufficient for me.
I just need to feel like I know that toes haven't been stepped on, and
that I don't have to fight a merge later..
Linus
