Hi all,

On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 10:48:27 +1000 (EST) James Morris [off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, Steve French wrote:

quoted

makes sense - do we want this going through the cifs tree or as part
of the xattr change mentioned below.

Should be fine to go into the CIFS tree, as long as that is in -next.

Except then that could leave Linus' tree broken during the next merge
window depending on the order he merges the cifs and security-testing
trees.  Unless that patch is sent to Linus as a fix patch before the next
merge window, of course.

I will add this patch as a merge fixup to the merge of the
security-testing tree for today.  And will remove my copy when one of the
trees gets fixed.

James: maybe I should change the name of your tree in -next to just
"security"?
-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/