On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 10:20 AM Lakshmi Ramasubramanian
<nramas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 9/11/20 7:07 AM, Paul Moore wrote:
> >>
> >> +static inline bool checkreqprot_enabled(const struct selinux_state *state)
> >> +{
> >> + return READ_ONCE(state->checkreqprot);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static inline void checkreqprot_set(struct selinux_state *state, bool value)
> >> +{
> >> + WRITE_ONCE(state->checkreqprot, value);
> >> +}
> >
> > This is a nitpick, and I recognize that Stephen already suggested the
> > use of "*_set()" and "*_enabled()" for names, but if we are going to
> > name the setter "*_set()" let's also name the getter "*_get()".
> >
> > Other than that, it looks fine to me.
> >
>
> Sure - I can do that.
>
> Are you expecting something like below (for checkreqprot and enforcing)?
>
> s/checkreqprot_enabled/checkreqprot_get/
>
> s/enforcing_enabled/enforcing_get/
Sorry for the confusion, I should have been more clear. I was
thinking that the names "checkreqprot_set()" and "checkreqprot_get()"
would be nice.
--
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com
