* Jan Engelhardt ([email protected]) wrote: > On Oct 22 2007 22:16, Chris Wright wrote: > >Yes, and I think we can still improve performance although I can't see > >anyway to help out the modular case, so I guess it will have to incur > >the hit that's always been there. I think your Kconfig option is a > >decent compromise. > > (Un)registering security modules is a one-time hit. You do not load > and unload modules on a per-minute basis outside debugging. I'm referring to the hit for indirect calls - 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: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]
- From: Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]
- References:
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface
- From: Andreas Gruenbacher <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface
- From: Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface
- From: James Morris <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]
- From: Chris Wright <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]
- From: Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface
- Prev by Date: Re: rt73usb: support for wireless in Kohjinsha subnotebook
- Next by Date: Re: LSM conversion to static interface
- Previous by thread: Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]
- Next by thread: Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]
- Index(es):
 |