Subject: Re: Upcoming security model abstraction
To: None <elad@NetBSD.org>
From: YAMAMOTO Takashi <email@example.com>
Date: 09/05/2006 22:28:12
> > given that only one "secmodel" can be compiled in a kernel,
> > it's better to have secmodel_start() for each secmodel.
> > __CONCAT here just complicates things unnecessarily, IMO.
> If you will be writing your own "overlay" model on-top of bsd44
> you will end up with conflicting symbols because code for both
> bsd44 and overlay will be compiled in.
of course, my "overlay" won't pick up the file.
> __CONCAT() actually simplifies things by calling the "real"
> model used.
i know what it does. i'd like to call it complicate.
maybe it's a matter of taste... i don't like inventing this unusual trick
while it can be perfectly done with existing config facilities and normal C.