On Sun, 2005-02-13 at 20:07 -0600, Jack O'Quin wrote:
> Mark Constable <markc@email-addr-hidden> 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
Received on Mon Feb 14 08:15:10 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 14 2005 - 08:15:11 EET