From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261514AbVAGQot (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jan 2005 11:44:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261503AbVAGQom (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jan 2005 11:44:42 -0500 Received: from albireo.ucw.cz ([81.27.203.89]:4996 "EHLO albireo.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261514AbVAGQlk (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jan 2005 11:41:40 -0500 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 17:41:37 +0100 From: Martin Mares To: Takashi Iwai Cc: Paul Davis , Christoph Hellwig , Arjan van de Ven , Lee Revell , Ingo Molnar , Chris Wright , Alan Cox , "Jack O'Quin" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] [request for inclusion] Realtime LSM Message-ID: <20050107164137.GA7672@ucw.cz> References: <20050107160808.GB6529@ucw.cz> <200501071614.j07GEgEC018705@localhost.localdomain> <20050107162902.GA7097@ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello! > > Yes, but is there really some difference between people having to enable > > LSM and add a new LSM module, and people recompiling the kernel to include > > capabilities? > > For distributors, it's much easier to provide an additional module > than to let people recompile kernels. Well, if LSM is enabled in the kernel, enabling capabilities should be a single insmod, shouldn't it? Have a nice fortnight -- Martin `MJ' Mares http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~mj/ Faculty of Math and Physics, Charles University, Prague, Czech Rep., Earth The better the better, the better the bet.