Re: [patch 5/12] lsm stacking v0.2: actual stacker module

[Tony Jones]

On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 07:24:41PM -0500, serge@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hmm, I could instead have one file per loaded LSM, which could
> obviate the need for the stacker/unload file, but that would make
> it more work for a user to find the ordering of the LSMs.  I wonder
> how much that would matter.
> 
> I'll implement your other changes, and consider switching to a
> stackerfs (versus changing the content presentation under sysfs).

I'd prefer each file (per loaded LSM) when read returned it's ordering
position, even though it's much clumsier than your current implementation.

There just isn't enough content to justify a stacker specific filesystem IMHO.

Tony
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/