On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 04:07:10PM +0800, yukaixiong wrote: ... > > > >> mm/swap.c | 16 ++- > >> mm/swap.h | 1 + > >> mm/util.c | 67 +++++++-- > >> mm/vmscan.c | 23 +++ > >> mm/vmstat.c | 44 +++++- > >> net/sunrpc/auth.c | 2 +- > >> security/min_addr.c | 11 ++ > >> 23 files changed, 330 insertions(+), 312 deletions(-) > >> > >> -- > >> 2.34.1 > >> > > General comment for the patchset in general. I would consider making the > > new sysctl tables const. There is an effort for doing this and it has > > already lanted in linux-next. So if you base your patch from a recent > > next release, then it should just work. If you *do* decide to add a > > const qualifier, then note that you will create a dependency with the > > sysctl patchset currently in next and that will have to go in before. > > > > Best > > > > Sorry, I don't understand what is the meaning of "create a dependency > with the sysctl patchset". The patches in the sysctl subsys that allow you to qualify the ctl_table as const are not in mainline yet. They are in linux-next. This means that if these patches go into the next kernel release before the sysctl-next branch, it will have compilation errors. Therefore the sysctl-next branch needs to be pulled in to the new kernel release before this patchest. This also means that for this to build properly it has to be based on a linux-next release. > > Do you just want me to change all "static struct ctl_table" type table > into "static const struct ctl_table" type in my patchset? You should const qualify them if the maintainer that is pulling in these patches is ok with it. You should *not* const qualify them if the maintainer prefers otherwise. Please get back to me if I did not address your questions. Best -- Joel Granados
