Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:33:56 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: smp@FreeBSD.ORG, Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Subject: Re: suser() API change patch Message-ID: <XFMail.20020329113356.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1020328233618.1932n-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 29-Mar-2002 Robert Watson wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Julian Elischer wrote: > >> On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Bruce Evans wrote: >> > suser(thread, flag) could still exist (named somthing like suser_flag()) >> > if it is used enough to justify it. My main point is that the flag is >> > rarely used, so the interface shouldn't be bloated to pass it. >> > >> > Another point: td->td_ucred can only be safely used without locking >> > if td is curthread. Our current code mostly assumes this. suser(td) >> > can easily check that td is curthread, but this is a silly reason to >> > use a bloated interface. It is just bug for bug compatible with passing >> > thread pointers around a lot. >> >> Bruce does have a point.. > > I'll be the first to admit that. It actually suggests the API should be: > > int suser(void); /* implicitly curthread */ > int suser_flags(int flags); /* implicitly curthread */ > int suser_cred(struct ucred *cred, int flags); Well, is this what everyone wants then? I can change it if this is what everyone agrees to. In a similar vein, should I get rid of the first argument for all the p_canfoo() functions when I change that API as well? -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.20020329113356.jhb>