Re: [PATCH] ifdef struct task_struct::security

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Serge E. Hallyn
Date: Monday, August 6, 2007 - 1:31 pm

Quoting Alexey Dobriyan (adobriyan@gmail.com):

I'm quite sure we started that way, but the ifdefs were considered
too much of an eyesore.

If this is now acceptable, then the same thing might be considered
for inode->i_security, kern_ipc_perm.security, etc.  Getting rid of
just the task->security seems overly half-hearted.

-serge

-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH] ifdef struct task_struct::security, Alexey Dobriyan, (Mon Aug 6, 11:55 am)
Re: [PATCH] ifdef struct task_struct::security, Serge E. Hallyn, (Mon Aug 6, 1:31 pm)
Re: [PATCH] ifdef struct task_struct::security, Andrew Morton, (Mon Aug 6, 10:08 pm)
Re: [PATCH] ifdef struct task_struct::security, Serge E. Hallyn, (Tue Aug 7, 8:05 am)
Re: [PATCH] ifdef struct task_struct::security, Casey Schaufler, (Tue Aug 7, 8:57 am)
Re: [PATCH] ifdef struct task_struct::security, Serge E. Hallyn, (Tue Aug 7, 9:12 am)
Re: [PATCH] ifdef struct task_struct::security, Alexey Dobriyan, (Tue Aug 7, 12:04 pm)
Re: [PATCH] ifdef struct task_struct::security, Andrew Morton, (Tue Aug 7, 5:34 pm)