Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 30 Apr 2015 08:10:30 -0700 | From | Casey Schaufler <> | Subject | Re: Module stacking next steps |
| |
On 4/30/2015 7:48 AM, Casey Schaufler wrote: > On 4/30/2015 4:20 AM, James Morris wrote: >> On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, John Johansen wrote: >> >>> On 04/29/2015 06:55 PM, James Morris wrote: >>>> On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Casey Schaufler wrote: >>>> >>>>> James, do you want to take the module stacking changes in through >>>>> the security tree? Are there remaining objections or concerns? What >>>>> procedure would you like to follow? >>>> What's the overall consensus on this -- do people generally see it as >>>> useful and necessary, and is it ready to go in? >>>> >>>> Any objections or concerns? >>>> >>> No objections, and I know there are several people interested in seeing >>> this land. >>> >>> I am happy with the code, and my only concerns lie with things that this >>> explicitly doesn't support yet (ie. larger lsm stacking, secids, ...) >> Ok, Casey, please send an updated final version for everyone to check. > Are you planning to update security-next soon? I think that it will > be easier for everyone if I base it on the 4.1-rc than the 4.0-rc. > Alternatively, I could base it on 4.0. I can do any of 'em, but I'd > hate to have to do it more often than I have to.
Whoops! I read mail addressed directly to me before I read what goes just to lists. I see that security-next is updated. I will have the update ready as quickly as possible. Thank you.
| |