13 Feb
2005
13 Feb
'05
11:12 p.m.
On Sun, 2005-02-13 at 20:07 -0600, Jack O'Quin wrote:
Mark Constable <markc(a)renta.net> writes:
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
Jack O'Quin wrote:
That's why I am patiently working to get realtime-lsm merged soon. ...
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 :-(