Re: [PATCH 4/14] audit: avoid missing-prototype warnings
"Arnd Bergmann" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.ports.mips,gmane.linux.kernel.mm,gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel,gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.linux.ports.parisc,gmane.linux.ports.ppc64.devel,gmane.linux.ports.riscv,gmane.linux.ports.sh.devel,gmane.linux.power-management.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Wed, May 17, 2023, at 16:33, Paul Moore wrote: > On May 17, 2023 Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> wrote: > We probably should move the audit_serial() and auditsc_get_stamp() > away from the watch/mark/tree functions, but that isn't your problem. > > Anyway, this looks okay to me; do you have a problem if I merge this > via the audit/next branch or were you hoping to have this go in > through a different tree? Merging it through your tree is probably best, Andrew can either pick the ones that nobody else took, or I can resend the rest. Arnd