Subject: Re: kauth sleepability (Re: CVS commit: src/share/man/man9)
To: YAMAMOTO Takashi <email@example.com>
From: Elad Efrat <elad@NetBSD.org>
Date: 07/21/2006 01:38:32
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?