The reason I limited it to just D or x is that without that, r and R files would also be protected and that wouldn't be desired. I can do a check just for those however since unfiltered behavior otherwise makes more sense.
On Apr 27, 2011 12:52 PM, "Lennart Poettering" <lenn...@poettering.net> wrote: On Wed, 27.04.11 10:03, William Douglas (william.r.doug...@gmail.com) wrote: > > +static bool pro... Hmmy, why only protected D and x here? I think it would make sense protect *everything* with a rule of its own. If somebody writes a rule, then it should apply unconditionally, and not be overriden by another rule. So I think this last check should be removed, or do you have a strong reason to limit this to x and D? Especially, since for the aging we did not make such a check, and your patch thus alterns the current behaviour, and I am not sure why? Otherwise looks fine to me. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
