Re: [RFC v2 2/7] keys: initialize root uid and session keyrings early

[Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 15:59 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 15:13 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >> >> > +#include "internal.h"
> >> >> > +static int __init init_root_keyring(void)
> >> >> > +{
> >> >> > +       return install_user_keyrings();
> >> >> > +}
> >> >> > +
> >> >> > +late_initcall(init_root_keyring);
> >> >> > --
> >> >>
> >> >> Why is this in an entirely new file instead of just being added to
> >> >> process_keys.c ?
> >> >>
> >> >> josh
> >> >
> >> > Only when "CONFIG_INTEGRITY_SIGNATURE" is selected, does this get built.
> >>
> >> Yes, I noticed that.  It doesn't explain why it's in its own file.  You
> >> could accomplish the same thing by wrapping the function and initcall
> >> in #ifdef CONFIG_INTEGRITY_SIGNATURE in process_keys.c.
> >
> > I was under the impression using 'ifdefs' in 'C' code was frowned upon
> > (Documentation/SubmittingPatches section 2.2).  This would be an
> > exception?
> 
> If it makes a big ugly mess it's frowned upon.  But if you're adding 7
> lines of code in a new file that will almost certainly never get more
> code added to it, I'm not sure.  IMHO, it can go into an existing file.
> Others might disagree.  Isn't Linux development fun?!

This is just a case where if I had 'ifdef's in 'C' code, I'm sure
someone would have complained.  :)

Mimi