On 02/28/2018 01:58 PM, Waiman Long wrote: > On 02/28/2018 01:43 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 12:53:40PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: >>> On 02/27/2018 07:47 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>>> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 03:49:48PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: >>>>> When minimum/maximum values are specified for a sysctl parameter in >>>>> the ctl_table structure with proc_dointvec_minmax() handler, >>>> an >>>> >>>>> update >>>>> to that parameter will fail with error if the given value is outside >>>>> of the required range. >>>>> >>>>> There are use cases where it may be better to clamp the value of >>>>> the sysctl parameter to the given range without failing the update, >>>>> especially if the users are not aware of the actual range limits. >>>> Makes me wonder if we should add something which does let one query >>>> for the ranges. Then scripts can fetch that as well. >>> That will actually be better than printing out the range in the dmesg >>> log. However, I haven't figured out an easy way of doing that. If you >>> have any suggestion, please let me know about it. >> I think a macro that also adds yet another proc read-only entry with a postfix >> "_range" with an internal handler which prints the range may suffice. >> >> Luis > I think that is a possible solution. Instead of adding a macro, I will > add one more flag which does the magic when the ctl_table entry is being > processed. I think that will be simpler from the user point of view. > > Cheers, > Longman > This patch will take a bit more time to work on. So I am going to do it as a separate patch on top of the current one later. I don't want to delay the review of the current patch set. Cheers, Longman
