On Sun, 2005-02-13 at 20:07 -0600, Jack O'Quin wrote: > Mark Constable <markc@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Jack O'Quin wrote: > > > ... > > > Many kernel developers opposed this. It *is* something of a hack. > > > But, no one has been able to come up with a better solution, and this > > > one at least looks safe. I expect it to be replaced by something > > > better in the 2.8 timeframe. > > > > Whoa... like in two or more years from now :-( > > That's why I am patiently working to get realtime-lsm merged soon. Congratulations for seeing this through. After endless and often frustrating debate on LKML I have gained a real appreciation of the kind of scrutiny that Linux kernel code is subjected to. If they add a feature that exposes any kind of API whatsoever they are committed to supporting it forever. It's not easy to convince the kernel developers that you have solved a problem they are not aware existed, but we seem to have done it. I think the argument that convinced them is that the API (none from the user POV and only 3 parameters from the admin POV) is so simple it can be easily and transparently replaced by a better solution anytime. Lee
