On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 12:57 PM Jan Kara <jack(a)suse.cz> wrote:
On Fri 14-09-18 15:13:28, Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 2018-09-04 18:06, Jan Kara wrote:
> > Hello,
>
> Jan,
>
> > this is the third revision of the series that addresses problems I have
> > identified when trying to understand how exactly is kernel/audit_tree.c using
> > generic fsnotify framework. I hope I have understood all the interactions
right
> > but careful review is certainly welcome.
>
> I've tried to review it as carefully as I am able. As best I understand
> it, this all looks reasonable and an improvement over the previous
> state. Thanks for the hard work.
>
> FWIW,
> Reviewed-by: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb(a)redhat.com>
Thanks for review! Paul should I send you updated patch 9 with that one
variable renamed or will you do that small change while merging the series?
Hi Jan,
Thanks again for these patches and your patience; some travel,
holidays, and a job change delayed my review. However, everything
looks okay to me (minus the one problem I noted in patch 09/11). I've
added the patches to audit/working-fsnotify_fixes and I'm going to
start stressing them as soon as I get a test kernel built with the
idea of merging them into audit/next as soon as the upcoming merge
window closes.
As far as the variable rename is concerned, that's not something I
would prefer to change during a merge, but if you or Richard wanted to
submit a renaming patch I would be okay with that in this case. If
you do submit the rename patch, please base it on top of this patchset
(or audit/working-fsnotify_fixes).
Thanks!
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com