On 11/01/2015 01:50 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Daniel Cashman <dcashman@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On 10/28/2015 08:41 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >>> Dan Cashman <dcashman@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>>>> This all would be much cleaner if the arm architecture code were just to >>>>>> register the sysctl itself. >>>>>> >>>>>> As it sits this looks like a patchset that does not meaninfully bisect, >>>>>> and would result in code that is hard to trace and understand. >>>>> >>>>> I believe the intent is to follow up with more architecture specific >>>>> patches to allow each architecture to define the number of bits to use >>>> >>>> Yes. I included these patches together because they provide mutual >>>> context, but each has a different outcome and they could be taken >>>> separately. >>> >>> They can not. The first patch is incomplete by itself. >> >> Could you be more specific in what makes the first patch incomplete? Is >> it because it is essentially a no-op without additional architecture >> changes (e.g. the second patch) or is it specifically because it >> introduces and uses the three "mmap_rnd_bits*" variables without >> defining them? If the former, I'd like to avoid combining the general >> procfs change with any architecture-specific one(s). If the latter, I >> hope the proposal below addresses that. > > A bit of both. The fact that the code can not compile in the first > patch because of missing variables is distressing. Having the arch > specific code as a separate patch is fine, but they need to remain in > the same patchset. > The first patch would compile as long as CONFIG_ARCH_MMAP_RND_BITS were not defined without also defining the missing variables. I actually viewed this as a safeguard against attempting to use those variables without architecture support, but am ok with changing it. I've gone ahead and submitted [PATCH v2] which aims to reduce duplication in the arch-specific config files and concerning those variables. The only caveat is that now the second patch depends on the first, whereas before it did not. Thank You, Dan -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>