On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 02:27:04PM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 06:16:53PM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > > Hi Luis, Joel, > > > > On 2023-12-05 09:04:08+0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > > > On 2023-12-04 21:50:14-0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 08:52:13AM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > > > > > Tested by booting and with the sysctl selftests on x86. > > > > > > > > Can I trouble you to rebase on sysctl-next? > > > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/linux.git/log/?h=sysctl-next > > > > > > Will do. > > > > The rebased series is now available at > > https://git.sr.ht/~t-8ch/linux b4/const-sysctl > > I've applied this to sysctl-next as this all looks very sensible to me, > except one patch which I'll chime in on, but I'm merging it to That is the "move sysctl type to ctl_table_header" right? > sysctl-next now without a promise to get this in as I really would like > this to soak in on linux-next for a bit even if it does not get merged > in the next kernel release. Exposing it on linux-next will surely > iron out run time issues fast. +1 for soaking it :) > > > Nothing much has changed in contrast to v2. > > The only functional change so far is the initialization of > > ctl_table_header::type in init_header(). > > > > I'll wait for Joels and maybe some more reviews before resending it. > > It all is very trivial stuff, except a few patches, but it all is making > sense, so my ask is to address feedback this week and post next week > a new set so we can have changes merged as-is for Linux in case this > really doesn't break anything. Any thoughts on the size of the tree-wide patches? > > For some reason I raccall seeing som hacky sysclts that shared and > modified an entry somewhere but the exact sysctl phases me, and I just > cannot recall. Its probably in net/*. There is were they are really taking advantage of ctl_table. > > > > [..] > > > > For the future I think it would make sense to combine the tree-wide constification > > of the structs with the removal of the sentinel values. > > > > This would reduce the impacts of the maintainers. > > Indeed. > > Luis -- Joel Granados
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
