Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 24 Jul 2002 12:56:17 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [BK PATCH] LSM changes for 2.5.27 |
| |
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 02:16:34PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 09:16, Roman Zippel wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > + error = security_ops->inode_setattr(dentry, attr); > > > > Am I the only one who'd like to see this as an inline function? > > 1. It can be optimized away. > > 2. It's easier to read.
Yes, I've considered it. I might still wrap them in a inline function if people _really_ don't like the look of them.
> You are not the only one. At the kernel summit there were discussions > about both wrapping the few performance impacting ones in ifdefs, and/or > using dynamic patching.
Yes, for the hooks that might affect performance (like the network ones) they will probably be wrapped in inline functions, and controlled by a config option.
thanks,
greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |