* Greg KH ([email protected]) wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 12:34:23PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 11:08:23AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > If people want to remove security_ops, that's fine (not for 2.6.17, but
> > > assuming you guys can come to some reasonable agreement, at some later
> > > date). But turning it into a GPL-only, but leaving all the infrastructure
> > > requiring it is not.
> >
> > Fair enough, I'll work toward removing security_ops so that it is no
> > longer needed at all.
>
> Ok, that was pretty foolish of me to attempt. We could move all of the
> inline functions in security.h to a .c file for when the LSM framework
> is enabled, but that might cause some slowdowns. Although I remember
> that Kurt Garloff did some work in this area in the past, showing that
> moving these out of inline caused some improvements on ia64.
No, those patches didn't deinline anything. Rather eliminated the
indirect call via sercurity_ops when possible. I was actually in the
process of ressurecting those when this whole thread broke out.
> Anyway, for now I'm not going to worry about this, it isn't that
> important...
Agreed ;-)
thanks,
-chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
