Re: factoring out the change_root() and making exporting change_{root,dir}() as interface

[Christoph Badura <bad%bsd.de@localhost>]

On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 07:55:20PM +0300, Elad Efrat wrote:
> Christoph Badura wrote:
> >I suppose it's possible to change the interface by moving a small bit
> >of common code out of it.  But it is convenient as it stands.
> >The place were I use it, would be the third calling site and it needs to
> >do the namei(), too.  Therefore i didn't change it.  I don't care much
> >either way, though.
> 
> Please provide a use case before exporting functions.

I already provided two use cases in the patch.  Maybe you missed them.
My third use case is exactly the same: avoid duplicating code by calling
a common function.

> I don't think
> we can judge whether the export is necessary or not without seeing
> what it's going to be used for...

Of course, it is not necessary to export the code.  I could just duplicate
it in-line.  Maybe you prefer that solution.

> especially when in one export you
> are bypassing the security infrastructure and in the other you are
> exporting a function that does not do what it name implies it will.

You are welcome to and will be given ample opportunity to audit the code in
question on whether it "bypasses the security infrastructure" or not.

Thank you for your input,
--chris