On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 12:58 PM <s...@google.com> wrote: > On 01/09, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 2:45 PM Stanislav Fomichev <s...@google.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 7:44 AM Paul Moore <p...@paul-moore.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > It was determined that the do_idr_lock parameter to > > > > bpf_prog_free_id() was not necessary as it should always be true. > > > > > > > > Suggested-by: Stanislav Fomichev <s...@google.com> > > > > > > nit: I believe it's been suggested several times by different people > > > As much as I would like to follow all of the kernel relevant mailing > > lists, I'm short about 30hrs in a day to do that, and you were the > > first one I saw suggesting that change :) > > Sure, sure, I'm just stating it for the other people on the CC. So maybe > we can drop this line when applying.
That's fine with me. To be honest, you folks can do whatever tweaks you want to these patches and that's okay with me; or even just dump them and rewrite them as you see fit, if that's easier. I'm only concerned with getting the regression fixed, who fixes it isn't something I'm worried about. -- paul-moore.com -- Linux-audit mailing list Linux-audit@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
