Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 02:27:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 02:27:21 -0500 Received: from 12-231-249-244.client.attbi.com ([12.231.249.244]:37393 "HELO kroah.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 02:27:20 -0500 Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 23:30:54 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Suparna Bhattacharya Cc: Richard J Moore , Rob Landley , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, S Vamsikrishna , Werner Almesberger Subject: Re: 2.5 Ready list - Kernel Hooks Message-ID: <20021031073054.GG6406@kroah.com> References: <20021024170226.GI22654@kroah.com> <20021025154922.A2303@in.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021025154922.A2303@in.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 880 Lines: 21 On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 03:49:22PM +0530, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote: > > The downside of course is that one solution may not suit all, > and in some cases (where the above aspects are not critical) > people might prefer as a matter of taste to have explicit subsystem > specific calls that clearly indicate the kind of component using the > hooks. (Am wondering if this is one of the reasons why LSM > would prefer not to link up with kernel hooks. Is that it ?) Yes, that is one of the main reasons LSM doesn't want to use such a mechanism. A simple, explicit, function call is fine for what we need to do. thanks, greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/