YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>>>i thought i suggested "near defcorename".  ie. resourcevar.h
>>>i'm not sure if it's the best place, but it's better than sysctl.h, at least.
>>>
>>>i don't think security.h is a good idea, for the same reason as
>>>sysctl "security" top level node.
>>
>>how about instead of splitting one XXX'd block across two files we'll
>>just wait until we have a place we know we want to keep it there and
>>only then move it?
> 
> 
> i don't understand what you mean.

i mean that right now the externs you're referring to belogns in a
bigger, already-XXX'd block of externs in sysctl.h. it is *clear* that
their place is not where they are, as the comment already suggests.

your suggestion to move them somewhere else -- where both of us know is
not the right place, either -- will result in leaving the first
(curtain) extern in sysctl.h, still with the XXX comment, and the
setid_core block of externs will move to resourcevar.h together with the
XXX comment because resourcevar.h is not the right place for it either.

so the result is even worse than the initial condition: instead of one
block of extern variables with an XXX comment saying "these should not
be here", we get *two* blocks of extern variables with XXX comments in
two different files.

my suggestion is that we should not be haste to move these for no good
reason and wait a while to see if a better place pops up with time.

-e.

-- 
Elad Efrat