Re: [PATCH] security.h updates

From: Chris Wright (chrisat_private)
Date: Thu Sep 13 2001 - 17:16:09 PDT

  • Next message: Stephen Smalley: "Re: [PATCH] security.h updates"

    * Greg KH (gregat_private) wrote:
    > On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 05:09:35PM -0700, Seth Arnold wrote:
    > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 09:39:38AM +1000, James Morris wrote:
    > > > Well, much of the networking code can run under interrupt -- I'm not sure
    > > > it's something we need to document here.
    > > 
    > > I think I would prefer having the possibility clearly documented.
    > > Someone some day might ask, and if we haven't documented it, that poor
    > > sap will have to spend some time trying to find out one way or the
    > > other, when that someone could have just read it from our header.
    > 
    > But info like this might be better pushed out into a separate document.
    
    i agree that the header file docs should skate the fine line between
    useful and too verbose.  perhaps a simple statement...
    
    "this function may be called from an interrupt.  think about it."
    
    we can always point to other documentation for what to do in interrupt
    context.  but i don't see any reason not to make it obvious.  do you?
    
    -chris
    
    _______________________________________________
    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 : Thu Sep 13 2001 - 17:28:25 PDT