On Wed, Feb 02 2022 at 17:17, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 01:21:46AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> *Today* all filesystem syctls now get reviewed by fs folks. They are
> all tidied up there.
>
> In the future x86 folks can review their sysctls. But for no reason
> should I have to review every single knob. That's not scalable.
Fair enough, but can we please have a changelog which explains the
rationale to the people who have not been part of that discussion and
decision.
>> That aside, I'm tired of this because this is now at V5 and you still
>> failed to fix the fallout reported by the 0-day infrastructure vs. this
>> part of the patch:
>>
>> > +static int __init timer_sysctl_init(void)
>> > +{
>> > + register_sysctl_init("kernel", timer_sysctl);
>> > + return 0;
>> > +}
>>
>> kernel/time/timer.c: In function 'timer_sysctl_init':
>> >> kernel/time/timer.c:284:9: error: implicit declaration of function 'register_sysctl_init'; did you mean 'timer_sysctl_init'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>> 284 | register_sysctl_init("kernel", timer_sysctl);
>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>
> That's an issue with the patch being tested on a tree where that
> routine is not present?
