Re: [PATCH 11/14] CacheFiles: Permit an inode's security ID to be obtained [try #2]

James Morris <[email protected]> wrote:

> > +	u32 (*inode_get_secid)(struct inode *inode);
> 
> To maintain API consistency, please return an int which only acts as an 
> error code, and returning the secid via a *u32 function parameter.

Does that apply to *all* the functions, irrespective of whether or not they
return an error?

David
-
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/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH 11/14] CacheFiles: Permit an inode's security ID to be obtained [try #2]
  - From: James Morris <[email protected]>

References:
- Re: [PATCH 11/14] CacheFiles: Permit an inode's security ID to be obtained [try #2]
  - From: James Morris <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 00/14] Permit filesystem local caching [try #2]
  - From: David Howells <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 11/14] CacheFiles: Permit an inode's security ID to be obtained [try #2]
  - From: David Howells <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH RT] Only run softirqs from the irq thread if the irq affinity is set to 1 CPU
Next by Date: Re: early boot lockup with 2.6.23-rc1
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 11/14] CacheFiles: Permit an inode's security ID to be obtained [try #2]
Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 11/14] CacheFiles: Permit an inode's security ID to be obtained [try #2]
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[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]