Re: suser() API change patch

On 29-Mar-2002 Robert Watson wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Julian Elischer wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Bruce Evans wrote:
>> > suser(thread, flag) could still exist (named somthing like suser_flag())
>> > if it is used enough to justify it.  My main point is that the flag is
>> > rarely used, so the interface shouldn't be bloated to pass it.
>> > 
>> > Another point: td->td_ucred can only be safely used without locking
>> > if td is curthread.  Our current code mostly assumes this.  suser(td)
>> > can easily check that td is curthread, but this is a silly reason to
>> > use a bloated interface.  It is just bug for bug compatible with passing
>> > thread pointers around a lot.
>> 
>> Bruce does have a point.. 
> 
> I'll be the first to admit that.  It actually suggests the API should be:
> 
> int   suser(void);                    /* implicitly curthread */
> int   suser_flags(int flags);         /* implicitly curthread */
> int   suser_cred(struct ucred *cred, int flags);

Well, is this what everyone wants then?  I can change it if this is what
everyone agrees to.  In a similar vein, should I get rid of the first argument
for all the p_canfoo() functions when I change that API as well?

-- 

John Baldwin <[e-mail]>  <><  http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve!"  -  http://www.FreeBSD.org/

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [e-mail]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message