On Tuesday 04 May 2010 03:44:30 pm Stephen Smalley wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 11:31 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Tuesday 04 May 2010 09:52:25 am Stephen Smalley wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 18:11 -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> > > > +static u32 socket_sockcreate_sid(const struct task_security_struct
> > > > *tsec) +{
> > > > + return tsec->sockcreate_sid ? tsec->sockcreate_sid : tsec->sid;
> > >
> > > Why is this clearer than just:
> > > return tsec->sockcreate_sid ?: tsec->sid;
> >
> > It is more explicit?
> >
> > Honestly, it is just a personal preference thing; if you want it the
> > other way just say so and I'll change it back. The value to me is in
> > the
> > socket_has_perm() and _post_create() cleanup ...
>
> More opportunity for inconsistency, IMHO. Nothing wrong with the ?:
> syntax.
Okay, while technically I suppose you are correct on the "more opportunity for
inconsistency" you have to admit the argument is a bit laughable considering
the complexity of statement and the function itself for that matter ;)
Regardless, I'll make the change ...
--
paul moore
linux @ hp
--
This message was distributed to subscribers of the selinux mailing list.
If you no longer wish to subscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
the words "unsubscribe selinux" without quotes as the message.
