On 06/24/10 21:27, Shawn Emery wrote:
On 06/24/10 04:44 PM, Glenn Barry wrote:
looks good in general, a few comments:
Abstracted interfaces
=
add descriptive blurb of func here
krb5_error_code __krb5_kt_add_ad_entries(krb5_context ctx,
char
Nicholas,
For the umad devices it seems to me that what you want is either to use
one of PRIV_SYS_DL_CONFIG (DL == datalink) or PRIV_SYS_NET_CONFIG (which
aggregates several config privs). Alternatively you could add a new
privilege called, say, PRIV_SYS_IB_CONFIG and update
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 12:14:48PM -0700, Ted H. Kim wrote:
For the umad devices it seems to me that what you want is either to use
one of PRIV_SYS_DL_CONFIG (DL == datalink) or PRIV_SYS_NET_CONFIG (which
aggregates several config privs). Alternatively you could add a new
privilege called,
Nicolas Williams wrote:
Adding a privilege is not a big deal [...]
The thing about not adding IB specific items into the admin
model is mostly about least surprise. Despite our view about
IB, many admins don't think about IB explicitly. We are trying
to avoid unpleasant IB surprises if an
Nicolas Williams wrote:
The receiver of a message with a certain Q_Key can always decide to
scrutinize it whatever way it wants and/or toss it out.
Sure, but do implementations typically provide ways to say don't accept
Q_keys from node xyz? If not, then there may be enough of a different
