On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 11:09:49AM +0200, Joel Granados wrote: > This is part of the effort to remove the empty element from the ctl_table > structures (used to calculate size) and replace it with the ARRAY_SIZE macro. > The "sysctl: Remove the end element in sysctl table arrays" commit is the one that > actually removes the empty element. With a "yesall" configuration the bloat-o-meter > says that 9158 bytes where saved (report at the end of the cover letter). 9k in ram or read-only memory? > Main changes: > 1. Add the ctl_table size into the ctl_table_header > 2. Remove the empty element at the end of all ctl_table arrays > > Commit Overview: > 1. There are preparation commits that make sure that we have the > ctl_table_header in all the places that we need to have the array size. > sysctl: Prefer ctl_table_header in proc_sysct > sysctl: Use the ctl header in list ctl_table macro > sysctl: Add ctl_table_size to ctl_table_header > > 2. Add size to relevant register calls. Calculate the ctl_table array size > where register_sysctl is called. Add a table_size argument to the relevant > sysctl register functions (init_header, __register_sysctl_table, > register_net_sysctl, register_sysctl and register_sysctl_init). Important to > note that these commits do NOT change the way we calculate size; they plumb > things in preparation for the empty element removal commit. Care is taken to > leave the tree in a state where it can be compiled which is the reason to > not separate the "big" commits (like "sysctl: Add size to the > register_net_sysctl function"). If you have an alternative way of dealing > with such a big commit while leaving it in a compilable state, please let me > know. > sysctl: Add size argument to init_header > sysctl: Add a size arg to __register_sysctl_table > sysctl: Add size to the register_net_sysctl function > sysctl: Add size to register_sysctl > sysctl: Add size to register_sysctl_init Why not make these calls automatically calculate the size based on the structure passed into them by using a #define instead of having to touch the code everywhere? That would make this much simpler AND make it impossible for future people to get this wrong. thanks, greg k-h
