From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1764679AbYEBOxY@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1764679AbYEBOxY (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 2 May 2008 10:53:24 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755824AbYEBOxP
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Fri, 2 May 2008 10:53:15 -0400
Received: from rgminet01.oracle.com ([148.87.113.118]:35437 "EHLO
	rgminet01.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1755562AbYEBOxO (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 2 May 2008 10:53:14 -0400
From: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
Subject: Re: Btrfs v0.14 Released
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 10:52:43 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405)
Cc: jeffschroeder@computer.org, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@medozas.de>,
       Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>, Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com>,
       linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
       John Johansen <jjohansen@suse.de>
References: <200804291601.32945.chris.mason@oracle.com> <200805021034.08358.chris.mason@oracle.com> <20080502143811.GC14976@parisc-linux.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080502143811.GC14976@parisc-linux.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200805021052.44076.chris.mason@oracle.com>
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI=
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI=
X-Whitelist: TRUE
X-Whitelist: TRUE
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Friday 02 May 2008, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 10:34:07AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > Thanks, but this uses CONFIG_SECURITY_APPARMOR which isn't enough to tell
> > if the kernel has the patch.  Lets go back to Jeff's suse patch:
>
> Do we really need to support kernels compiled with the apparmour patch
> applied but not enabled?  That would be a custom kernel build, and I get
> the impression that people Just Don't Do That -- if they want a newer
> kernel, they fetch one from kernel.org.  Maybe I'm wrong though.

Yeah, if there's no better test I'll just use the one for the apparmor config 
(and stop spamming l-k with this btrfs specific stuff).

-chris