From owner-freebsd-arch  Sun May  7 22:41:43 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from flamingo.McKusick.COM (flamingo.mckusick.com [209.31.233.178])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 37BDE37B8F0; Sun,  7 May 2000 22:41:42 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from mckusick@flamingo.McKusick.COM)
Received: from flamingo.McKusick.COM (mckusick@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by flamingo.McKusick.COM (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id WAA15248;
	Sun, 7 May 2000 22:25:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <200005080525.WAA15248@flamingo.McKusick.COM>
To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: Proposed changes to suser() 
Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, trustedbsd-discuss@trustedbsd.org
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 04 May 2000 10:32:06 EDT."
             <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1000504101844.34694A-100000@fledge.watson.org> 
Date: Sun, 07 May 2000 22:25:09 -0700
From: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@flamingo.McKusick.COM>
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

Overall, I like your proposal. However, I would really like to
see the elimination of suser_xxx. This was a hack because it
was deemed too intrusive to go through and change every use
of suser to change it from one to three parameters. But if you
are going to go through and make a change to every instance of
suser anyway, how about we fix this bogosity and get one clean
interface.

	Kirk McKusick


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message