Re: [PATCH V9 2/3] audit: implement audit by executable
On Friday, August 07, 2015 02:25:14 AM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
On 15/08/06, Paul Moore wrote:
> Merged, although some more minor whitespace tweaks were necessary for
> checkpatch. On a related note, if you're not running
> ./scripts/checlpatch.pl on your patches before sending them out, I would
> recommend it. It isn't perfect, but it can catch some silly things that
> we all do from time to time.
No excuses... I have been running it pretty regularly and got lazy and
distracted with patch revisions. I can't say I agree with the no space
before closing round parenthesis due to legibility, but will comply.
Okay, glad to hear you run it regularly when submitting patches.
I agree that there are some things I might change about the kernel's style
choices, but I think it is more important that we remain consistent with the
kernel as a whole. I really like tools that enforce things like this, even if
I don't agree 100% with the results.
> Also, one last thing. It is pretty late in the -rcX cycle to
merge these
> two patches, but considering that we've been talking about these for a
> while, I'm reasonably okay merging them. In the future, if it isn't in
> audit#next by the time -rc5 is released, it isn't going to make the merge
> window.
I've been quite aware of that looming merge window... This feature has
been iterating for a while, so there are no big surprises. I was aiming
for earlier. :)
Well, I think it is a little early to say there are no big surprises, we won't
know that for a few more weeks, but if we make it to -rc3/4 without any
problems I'll breathe a bit easier ;)
--
paul moore
security @ redhat