On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 10:58:30AM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 04:06:26PM +0200, Joel Granados wrote:
> > In order to remove the end element from the ctl_table struct arrays, we
> > replace the register_syctl function with a macro that will add the
> > ARRAY_SIZE to the new register_sysctl_sz function. In this way the
> > callers that are already using an array of ctl_table structs do not have
> > to change. We *do* change the callers that pass the ctl_table array as a
> > pointer.
>
> Thanks for doing this and this series!
>
> > Signed-off-by: Joel Granados <j.granados@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > diff --git a/include/linux/sysctl.h b/include/linux/sysctl.h
> > index 0495c858989f..b1168ae281c9 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/sysctl.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/sysctl.h
> > @@ -215,6 +215,9 @@ struct ctl_path {
> > const char *procname;
> > };
> >
> > +#define register_sysctl(path, table) \
> > + register_sysctl_sz(path, table, ARRAY_SIZE(table))
> > +
> > #ifdef CONFIG_SYSCTL
>
> Wasn't it Greg who had suggested this? Maybe add Suggested-by with him
> on it.
Yes. I mentioned him in the cover letter and did not add the tag because
I had not asked for permission to use it. I'll drop him a mail and
include the suggested-by if he agrees.
>
> Also, your cover letter and first few patches are not CC'd to the netdev
> list or others. What you want to do is collect all the email addresses
> for this small patch series and add them to who you email for your
> entire series, otherwise at times they won't be able to properly review
> or understand the exact context of the changes. You want folks to do less
> work to review, not more.
Here I wanted to avoid very big e-mail headers as I have received
rejections from lists in the past. But I for this set, the number of
e-mails is ok to just include everyone.
I'll do that for V2.
thx for your feedback
best
>
> So please resend and add others to the other patches.
>
> Luis
--
Joel Granados
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
