On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 09:42:00AM +0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 09:35:29AM +0800, Yan Zhu wrote: > > Sysctl table is easier to read under its own module. > > Hey Yan, thanks for you patch! > > This does not explain how this is being to help with maitenance as otherwise this makes > kernel/sysctl.c hard to maintain and we also tend to get many conflicts. It also does not > explain how all the filesystem sysctls are not gone and that this is just the next step, > moving slowly the rest of the sysctls. Explaining this in the commit log will help patch > review and subsystem maintainers understand the conext / logic behind the move. > > I'd be more than happy to take this if bpf folks Ack. To avoid conflicts I can route this > through sysctl-next which is put forward in particular to avoid conflicts across trees for > this effort. Let me know. Thank you for your reply. My patch is based on sysctl-next, sorry I forgot to identify it as a patch from the sysctl-next branch. I will send the v2 patch later.
