YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>> YAMAMOTO Takashi wrote:
>>>> also note that some constructs actually set EPERM as the retval for the
>>>> function and break. do you still think we should convert those that use
>>>> the above construct to the one you suggest?
>>> yes.  my point is not to assume failure of kauth_foo() is due to EPERM.
>> kauth_authorize_action() can return either 0 or EPERM; the reason may be
>> different, but the final decision is one of those. or do you mean
>> something else?
> 
> well, what's the point to let callers know it?

oh I get your point. will change now.

-e.

-- 
Elad Efrat