On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 1:05 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 6/5/2019 9:51 AM, Janne Karhunen wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 6:23 PM Casey Schaufler <casey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>> -int call_lsm_notifier(enum lsm_event event, void *data); > >>> -int register_lsm_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb); > >>> -int unregister_lsm_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb); > >>> +int call_blocking_lsm_notifier(enum lsm_event event, void *data); > >>> +int register_blocking_lsm_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb); > >>> +int unregister_blocking_lsm_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb); > >> Why is it important to change the names of these hooks? > >> It's not like you had call_atomic_lsm_notifier() before. > >> It seems like a lot of unnecessary code churn. > > Paul was thinking there will eventually be two sets of notifiers > > (atomic and blocking) and this creates the clear separation. > > One hook with an added "bool blocking" argument, if > that's the only difference? I think there is value in keeping a similar convention to the notifier code on which this is based, see include/linux/notifier.h. -- paul moore www.paul-moore.com
