Kirill Korotaev <dev@xxxxx> writes: > Eric, though I personally don't care much: > 1. I ask for not setting your authorship/copyright on the code which you just > copied > from other places. Just doesn't look polite IMHO. I can't claim complete ownership of the code, there was plenty of feed back and contributions from others but the final form without a big switch statement is mine. I certainly can't claim the table, it has been in that form for years. If you notice I actually didn't say whose copyright it was :) just that I wrote the file. If there are copyright claims I should include I will be happy to do that. Mostly I was just trying to find some stupid boiler plate that would work. > 2. I would propose to not introduce utsname_sysctl.c. > both files are too small and minor that I can't see much reasons splitting > them. The impact of moving this code out of sysctl.c is a major simplification, to sysctl.c. Putting them in their own file means we can cleanly restrict the code to only be compiled CONFIG_SYSCTL is set. It is a necessary first step to implementing a per process /proc/sys. It reorganizes the ipc and utsname sysctl from a terribly fragile structure to something that is robust and easy to follow. Code scattered all throughout sysctl.c was just a disaster. We had several instances of having to fix bugs with odd combinations of CONFIG options, simply because the other spot that needed to be touched wasn't obvious. So from my perspective this is an extremely worthwhile change that will make maintenance easier and is a small first step towards some nice future functionality. Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
