RE: [RFC 1/3] secid reconciliation on inbound
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, James Morris wrote: > > > On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Venkat Yekkirala wrote: > > > > > +#define PACKET__COME_THRU 0x0008UL > > > +#define PACKET__GO_THRU 0x0010UL > > > > These names seem awkward, and do we really need a separate > perm for each > > direction? > > Ok, I see we need separate permissions. The naming, still... You are probably seeing something I haven't :), because I did consider using just one perm such as flow_thru for both directions but then thought separate perms would make things easier to understand. As for naming, how about "enter" and "leave"? Or "flow_in" and "flow_out". Any other suggestions out there? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [RFC 1/3] secid reconciliation on inbound
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, James Morris wrote: > On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Venkat Yekkirala wrote: > > > +#define PACKET__COME_THRU 0x0008UL > > +#define PACKET__GO_THRU 0x0010UL > > These names seem awkward, and do we really need a separate perm for each > direction? Ok, I see we need separate permissions. The naming, still... - James -- James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [RFC 1/3] secid reconciliation on inbound
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Venkat Yekkirala wrote: > +#define PACKET__COME_THRU 0x0008UL > +#define PACKET__GO_THRU 0x0010UL These names seem awkward, and do we really need a separate perm for each direction? - James -- James Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
