On Nov 26, 2021, at 5:49 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen [off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, 2021-11-23 at 23:41 -0500, Eric Snowberg wrote:

quoted

In preparation for returning either the existing
restrict_link_by_builtin_and_secondary_trusted or the upcoming
restriction that includes the trusted builtin, secondary and
machine keys, to improve clarity, rename
get_builtin_and_secondary_restriction to get_secondary_restriction.

Suggested-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@oracle.com>
Reviewed-by: Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>
---
v6: Initial version
v7: Unmodified from v7
v8: Code unmodified from v7, added Mimi's Reviewed-by
---
 certs/system_keyring.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/certs/system_keyring.c b/certs/system_keyring.c
index 692365dee2bd..8f1f87579819 100644
--- a/certs/system_keyring.c
+++ b/certs/system_keyring.c

@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ int restrict_link_by_builtin_and_secondary_trusted(
  * Allocate a struct key_restriction for the "builtin and secondary trust"
  * keyring. Only for use in system_trusted_keyring_init().
  */
-static __init struct key_restriction *get_builtin_and_secondary_restriction(void)
+static __init struct key_restriction *get_secondary_restriction(void)
 {
        struct key_restriction *restriction;
 

@@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ static __init int system_trusted_keyring_init(void)
                               KEY_USR_VIEW | KEY_USR_READ | KEY_USR_SEARCH |
                               KEY_USR_WRITE),
                              KEY_ALLOC_NOT_IN_QUOTA,
-                             get_builtin_and_secondary_restriction(),
+                             get_secondary_restriction(),
                              NULL);
        if (IS_ERR(secondary_trusted_keys))
                panic("Can't allocate secondary trusted keyring\n");

This is wrong order.

You should first do the changes that make the old name
obsolete and only after that have a patch that does the
rename. Unfortunately, this patch cannot possibly acked
with the current order.

I can change the order, but I'm confused how this would work for a git bisect. 
If the rename happens afterwards, now two patches will always need to be 
reverted instead of the possibility of one.  Is this your expectation?