[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201106141648.25168.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:48:25 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...e.de>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 02/04] procfs: add hidepid modes as mount options
On Tuesday 14 June 2011, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> > I don't really have an opinion on your patch, but it seems that it does more than
> > the description explains: The hidenet/nohidenet option is in the patch as well,
> > although it doesn't have much of an effect.
>
> Correct, it is just a matter of a patch division granularity. Alexey said
> the patch should be divided into pid and net parts. I divided it into
> (pid + all mount opts parsing) and (actual hidenet usage). As both pid
> and net parts depend on options parsing, they are not fully independent,
> and cannot be well splitted (or I just don't see how).
Ah, I missed the fact that this is part of a longer series, because I was only Cc:d
on this one patch.
The best way to split it is to just not add the lines regarding the network
stuff in this patch, but to patch them in the other changeset that adds the
code using it. It's slightly more work to create that series though, and it
means that you have to apply the patches in order (which I guess you do anyway).
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
