Greg KH wrote: >I don't like the locking information, as it too will quickly go out of >date. I'd rather just refer people to the kernel locking document that >someone at IBM is keeping, which details the placement of all kernel >locks. The folks at IBM document under what contexts foo() can be called, not how it was intended to be called. The latter is useful to have as comments: if foo() is only intended to be called with lock L enabled, this is useful to have commented, as one would hope that everyone who calls foo() will read this documentation and make sure they have L enabled. The drawback of the IBM document is that, if anyone calls foo() without L enabled, the IBM document will say that foo() can be called with or without L enabled, which would be a correct characterization of the code but not what was intended. In other words, I would argue that prescriptive conditions are useful to have commented, but the descriptive observations can be left to IBM. (I speculate that few -- if any -- hooks have prescriptive preconditions.) _______________________________________________ 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 Nov 01 2001 - 17:04:51 PST