From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:53:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:53:18 -0400 Received: from 12-231-243-94.client.attbi.com ([12.231.243.94]:38919 "HELO kroah.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:53:17 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 12:56:17 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Alan Cox , Roman Zippel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@wirex.com Subject: Re: [BK PATCH] LSM changes for 2.5.27 Message-ID: <20020724195617.GD11384@kroah.com> References: <1027430194.31782.125.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1027430194.31782.125.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Operating-System: Linux 2.2.21 (i586) Reply-By: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 18:46:00 -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 02:16:34PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 09:16, Roman Zippel wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > + error = security_ops->inode_setattr(dentry, attr); > > > > Am I the only one who'd like to see this as an inline function? > > 1. It can be optimized away. > > 2. It's easier to read. Yes, I've considered it. I might still wrap them in a inline function if people _really_ don't like the look of them. > You are not the only one. At the kernel summit there were discussions > about both wrapping the few performance impacting ones in ifdefs, and/or > using dynamic patching. Yes, for the hooks that might affect performance (like the network ones) they will probably be wrapped in inline functions, and controlled by a config option. thanks, greg k-h