From owner-freebsd-current Wed Jan 27 15:02:25 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA26305 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 15:02:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from kithrup.com (kithrup.com [205.179.156.40]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA26299 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 15:02:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sef@kithrup.com) Received: (from sef@localhost) by kithrup.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA02846; Wed, 27 Jan 1999 15:02:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sef) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 15:02:20 -0800 (PST) From: Sean Eric Fagan Message-Id: <199901272302.PAA02846@kithrup.com> To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: "JAIL" code headed for -current. In-Reply-To: <199901271944.LAA15317.kithrup.freebsd.current@kithrup.com> References: <29763.917434096.kithrup.freebsd.current@critter.freebsd.dk> Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd. Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In article <199901271944.LAA15317.kithrup.freebsd.current@kithrup.com> you write: >>all over the kernel: >> >> suser(NOJAIL, bla, bla); >>or >> suser(0, bla, bla); >Oh, goody, more gratuitious incomaptibilities with everyone else. And to followup to my own message, since nobody else has: This is stupid. While I don't object to the concept (and even know people who have requested it), that particular implementation sucks. It breaks an existing API *and* ABI. I would suggest using a different routine name than suser(); suser() can be made into a macro or stub routine that calls the new routine with a first argument of 0 (or, of course, both a macro *and* a stub routine). Any time there's a change, "all over the kernel," THIS SHOULD RAISE WARNING FLAGS, PEOPLE! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message