[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Line.LNX.4.64.0706250057350.16074@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 00:58:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>
To: Petr Vandrovec <vandrove@...cvut.cz>
cc: Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serue@...ibm.com>,
Andrew Morgan <agm@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...gle.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH try #2] security: Convert LSM into a static interface
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007, Petr Vandrovec wrote:
> > -module_param(debug, bool, 0600);
> > -MODULE_PARM_DESC(debug, "Debug enabled or not");
> > +static int __init root_plug_debug(char *str)
> > +{
> > + debug = simple_strtol(str, NULL, 0);
> > + return 1;
> > +}
> > +__setup("root_plug_debug=", root_plug_debug);
>
> is this necessary? What about just documenting
> root_plug.{vendor_id,product_id,debug}, so it won't break existing root_plug
> users (if there are any) ? I thought that typed module_param() is prefered
> over untyped __setup()...
I didn't know module_param was preferred.
The idea was that root_plug is example code, and should do the typical
thing, which I thought would be __setup.
I can easily change it if needed.
--
James Morris
<jmorris@...ei.org>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists