Re: [PATCH] new audit rule interface
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 01:58:29PM -0600, Dustin Kirkland wrote:
On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 11:10 -0600, Timothy R. Chavez wrote:
> Good points Debbie. And just to add fuel to the fire, if we're
> concerned about verbosity and readability, why not just:
>
> audit_transport
I think that unfortunately looses the fact that this is a data structure
representing an "audit rule".
That's true.
The more I think about it, I don't really like xprt/transport.
Looking through the kernel sources, the only code that uses xprt
meaning transport is RPC code. I'd prefer to avoid any unwarranted
associations with RPC. I also don't think transport accurately
describes what's happening here.
How about audit_rule_data? I would personally prefer that to
audit_rule_xprt.
Amy