Subject: Re: kauth sleepability (Re: CVS commit: src/share/man/man9)
To: Elad Efrat <elad@NetBSD.org>
From: Matt Thomas <email@example.com>
Date: 07/20/2006 15:57:00
Elad Efrat wrote:
> YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>> isn't it better to do the opposite?
>> ie. callers of kauth_authorize_action should not assume it never sleep.
> given the replacement of suser() with kauth_authorize_action() (or, the
> authorization wrappers) we might have some places where the code
> actually expects it don't sleep, no?
Why would suser (or it's replacement) ever be used in a context where
sleep is not possible?
Matt Thomas email: firstname.lastname@example.org
3am Software Foundry www: http://3am-software.com/bio/matt/
Cupertino, CA disclaimer: I avow all knowledge of this message.