From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Smith Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] Add common socket helpers to unify the security hooks Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 12:43:00 -0700 Message-ID: <87d47bl60r.fsf@caffeine.danplanet.com> References: <1249331463-11887-1-git-send-email-danms@us.ibm.com> <1249331463-11887-4-git-send-email-danms@us.ibm.com> <20090804192036.GC10275@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: containers@lists.osdl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: "Serge E. Hallyn" Return-path: Received: from gw0.danplanet.com ([71.245.107.82]:39640 "EHLO mail.danplanet.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752680AbZHDTnD (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:43:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090804192036.GC10275@us.ibm.com> (Serge E. Hallyn's message of "Tue\, 4 Aug 2009 14\:20\:36 -0500") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: SH> My only concern here is whether 0 should be passed in by the SH> caller? (Not sure, just wondering) I just figured I'd split up the 0/1 case into getname and getpeer, mirroring the libc calls. I don't care either way. -- Dan Smith IBM Linux Technology Center email: danms@us.ibm.com