On 11/20/2015 05:19 PM, Seth Arnold wrote: > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 04:35:20PM -0800, John Johansen wrote: >> Do you really think, this 1 little condition tucked away is that much more >> maintenance? The way it is set up, it is completely transparent to the >> rest of the code. That is we can delete it and the rest of the code doesn't >> need to change. > > Well, if you feel strongly enough that we should keep it, how about > adding a comment near work_sync_one() that it shouldn't be used directly? > work_sync() knows how to avoid the case I'm worried about. > sure
-- AppArmor mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/apparmor
