Re: [patch 5/12] lsm stacking v0.2: actual stacker module

Tony Jones
2005-07-03T18:29:29Z

On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 07:24:41PM -0500, serge@hallyn.com wrote:
> Hmm, I could instead have one file per loaded LSM, which could
> obviate the need for the stacker/unload file, but that would make
> it more work for a user to find the ordering of the LSMs. I wonder
> how much that would matter.
>
> I'll implement your other changes, and consider switching to a
> stackerfs (versus changing the content presentation under sysfs).

I'd prefer each file (per loaded LSM) when read returned it's ordering
position, even though it's much clumsier than your current implementation.

There just isn't enough content to justify a stacker specific filesystem IMHO.

Tony