Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Stacking through chaining (v3)

From: Jesse Pollard (jesse@cats-chateau.net)
Date: Thu Dec 02 2004 - 07:09:18 PST


On Wednesday 01 December 2004 11:21, Valdis.Kletnieks@private wrote:
...
> I'm not sure how I feel about that particular conflict resolution - we'd
> have to be more specific about the calling order - would we:
>
> a) Call capable() first, and if it fails, then run the restrictive chain
> b) Call capable() first, and if it succeeds, run the restrictive chain
> c) call Capable(), run the chain, and return (capable || chain)
> d) Run the restrictive chain, and if it fails, call capable() as a last
> resort e) Run the restrictive chain, and if it succeeds, call capable()
> f) Run both, and return (chain || capable)

Did you mean: f) run both, and return (chain && capable)?
since otherwise, (f) and (c) would appear equivalent.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Dec 02 2004 - 12:30:53 PST