Re: [PATCH 3/5] Call security hooks conditionally if the security_op is filled out.

2005-08-25 Thread Chris Wright
* Kurt Garloff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > You did not like my macro abuse, apparently. > That's too bad, as it allowed you to do changes without changing > hundreds of lines of code. It was handy that way, but I think this way is just cleaner and simpler. Esp. when checking against the function

Re: [PATCH 3/5] Call security hooks conditionally if the security_op is filled out.

2005-08-25 Thread Kurt Garloff
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 06:20:31PM -0700, Chris Wright wrote: > Call security hooks conditionally if the security_op is filled out. > Branches can be more efficient than the unconditional indirect function > call. Inspired by patch from Kurt Garloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > > Signed-off-by: Chris W

[PATCH 3/5] Call security hooks conditionally if the security_op is filled out.

2005-08-24 Thread Chris Wright
Call security hooks conditionally if the security_op is filled out. Branches can be more efficient than the unconditional indirect function call. Inspired by patch from Kurt Garloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. Signed-off-by: Chris Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- include/linux/security.h | 825 +