On 2024/10/24 16:59, Joel Granados wrote:
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
Thank you! Now， I decide to const qualify them. Maybe, it will be better.
