Re: Patch for swapon/swapoff and nfs server ctl

From: Wayne Salamon (wsalamonat_private)
Date: Fri Aug 17 2001 - 11:21:27 PDT

  • Next message: jmjonesat_private: "Re: [PATCH] Authoritative hooks"

    On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Seth Arnold wrote:
    
    > Wayne, is there any reason why you used an int to multiplex the same
    > hook between swapon and swapoff?
    >
    
      To save a hook. The 'int cmd' is either 0 or 1, for swapoff/swapon.
    For our purposes, one hook can handle both cases.
    
    > I was initially concerned that it was magic looking until I actually
    > lookd at the modified functions.. but I wonder how folks would prefer
    > one hook multiplexed by an int, or two hooks, one for each?
    >
    
      If the consensus is to have two hooks, that's not a problem. I was
    just trying to control both swap states from a single hook in order
    to remove an extra hook. There's not much complexity that this hook
    needs to deal with.
    
      Thanks,
    
    -- 
    Wayne Salamon
    wsalamonat_private
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    linux-security-module mailing list
    linux-security-moduleat_private
    http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-security-module
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Aug 17 2001 - 11:27:33 PDT