From owner-freebsd-arch Mon May 8 1:12: 9 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50C8F37B5F5; Mon, 8 May 2000 01:12:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost.freebsd.dk [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA16752; Mon, 8 May 2000 10:11:11 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Kirk McKusick Cc: Robert Watson , freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG, trustedbsd-discuss@trustedbsd.org Subject: Re: Proposed changes to suser() In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 07 May 2000 22:25:09 PDT." <200005080525.WAA15248@flamingo.McKusick.COM> Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 10:11:10 +0200 Message-ID: <16750.957773470@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <200005080525.WAA15248@flamingo.McKusick.COM>, Kirk McKusick writes: >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. I agree. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD coreteam member | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message