Elad Efrat wrote:
> YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
> 
>> isn't it better to do the opposite?
>> ie. callers of kauth_authorize_action should not assume it never sleep.
> 
> given the replacement of suser() with kauth_authorize_action() (or, the
> authorization wrappers) we might have some places where the code
> actually expects it don't sleep, no?

Why would suser (or it's replacement) ever be used in a context where
sleep is not possible?
-- 
Matt Thomas                     email: matt@3am-software.com
3am Software Foundry              www: http://3am-software.com/bio/matt/
Cupertino, CA              disclaimer: I avow all knowledge of this message.