Message-Id: <200501112248.j0BMmh9t006949@localhost.localdomain>
To: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>
cc: Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>, Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>,
       "Jack O'Quin" <joq@io.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, arjanv@redhat.com, mingo@elte.hu,
       alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [request for inclusion] Realtime LSM 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:28:23 PST."
             <20050111212823.GX2940@waste.org> 
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 17:48:43 -0500
From: Paul Davis <paul@linuxaudiosystems.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 805
Lines: 18

>But I'm also still not convinced this policy can't be most flexibly
>handled by a setuid helper together with the mlock rlimit.

This has been explained several times already.

When you run a JACK client, the user should not be required to use a
different command sequence depending on whether or not JACK is running
with RT scheduling or not. That's almost more arcane than the current
situation and is a step backwards from even 2.4, where we use
capabilities to allow JACK itself to pass on the ability to use RT
scheduling and memlock to its clients.

--p
-
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/