From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261573AbVCHVyg (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Mar 2005 16:54:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262121AbVCHVyf (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Mar 2005 16:54:35 -0500 Received: from mustang.oldcity.dca.net ([216.158.38.3]:58348 "HELO mustang.oldcity.dca.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261573AbVCHVyO (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Mar 2005 16:54:14 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] [request for inclusion] Realtime LSM From: Lee Revell To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , paul@linuxaudiosystems.com, mpm@selenic.com, joq@io.com, cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com, Chris Wright , arjanv@redhat.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20050308212027.GA17664@infradead.org> References: <20050112185258.GG2940@waste.org> <200501122116.j0CLGK3K022477@localhost.localdomain> <20050307195020.510a1ceb.akpm@osdl.org> <20050308035503.GA31704@infradead.org> <20050307201646.512a2471.akpm@osdl.org> <20050308042242.GA15356@elte.hu> <20050307202821.150bd023.akpm@osdl.org> <20050308043250.GA32746@infradead.org> <1110308156.4401.4.camel@mindpipe> <20050308212027.GA17664@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:34:33 -0500 Message-Id: <1110317673.5982.8.camel@mindpipe> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 21:20 +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 01:55:55PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote: > > And as I mentioned a few times, the authors have neither the inclination > > nor the ability to do that, because they are not kernel hackers. The > > realtime LSM was written by users (not developers) of the kernel, to > > solve a specific real world problem. No one ever claimed it was the > > correct solution from the kernel POV. > > And I told you that doesn't matter. If someone wants a feature in they > should find a way to make it palable. We're not accepting such excuses > to put in crap. > Fine. Consider it a proof of concept. I'm satisfied if any solution gets merged, it doesn't have to be this one. I am still confused about why the LSM framework was merged in the first place. Lee