Re: [PATCH 4/14] audit: avoid missing-prototype warnings
Paul Moore <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.ports.riscv,gmane.linux.kernel.mm,gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel,gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.linux.ports.mips,gmane.linux.ports.parisc,gmane.linux.ports.ppc64.devel,gmane.linux.ports.sh.devel,gmane.linux.power-management.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAHC9VhQZyxVhDb0uB-+q7H=e++yq0qEAZGssPjepgnZ3i3_pnA@mail.gmail.com> |
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 10:51 AM Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. Easy enough, merged to audit/next, thanks. -- paul-moore.com _______________________________________________ linux-riscv mailing list [email protected] http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv