From: Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com>
To: Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-audit@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sgrubb@redhat.com,
        eparis@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5] audit: use macros for unset inode and device values
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 14:37:43 -0400
Message-ID: <3232354.zp6VWdiO1X@sifl>
Organization: Red Hat
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.1.2-gentoo; KDE/4.14.10; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <20150806034034.GA18741@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
References: <4dbec928da0490e35bee7388e698845e70caa9ed.1438805802.git.rgb@redhat.com> <6956887.xCl3Q82COv@sifl> <20150806034034.GA18741@madcap2.tricolour.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1209
Lines: 26

On Wednesday, August 05, 2015 11:40:34 PM Richard Guy Briggs wrote:
> On 15/08/05, Paul Moore wrote:
> > I suspect it was lost in the noise when I mentioned it on v4, but how
> > about changing AUDIT_DEV_UNSET to "(dev_t)-1"?
> 
> I saw your comment only after resubmitting.  I'm fine either way.  If it
> is needed for uapi later it can be changed then.  Is it easy to change
> in your workflow, or should I resubmit?  I know you routinely change the
> patch description, but could not remember if you have actually changed
> the patch itself...

With the exception of trivial merge conflicts, in general I like to avoid 
changing the body of the patches when I apply them; there are always going to 
be exceptions, but when possible I try to avoid it.  I consider tweaking the 
patch subject lines pretty trivial, especially in the last case where the 
subject line had become wrong/invalid due to changes in the patch itself.

-- 
paul moore
security @ redhat

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/