Re: [PATCH 2/2] signal: move show_unhandled_signals sysctl to its own file

[Luis Chamberlain]

On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 11:52:58AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 5/24/23 00:30, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> >> It doesn't actually have anything to do with moving the
> >> show_unhandled_signals sysctl, right?
> > Well in my case it is making sure the sysctl variable used is declared
> > as well.
> 
> But what does this have to do with _this_ patch?  This:

Because to create consistency for the users.

> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/umip.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/umip.c
> > @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
> >  #include <asm/insn.h>
> >  #include <asm/insn-eval.h>
> >  #include <linux/ratelimit.h>
> > +#include <linux/signal.h>
> 
> For instance.  You don't move things to another header or make *ANY*
> change to the compilation of umip.c.  So why patch it?
> 
> It looks to me like a _fundamentally_ superfluous change.  That hunk
> literally *can't* be related to the rest of the patch.

I suspect it is not needed as otherwise compilation would have failed.
So I'll just drop it.

> >> If that's the case, it would be nice to have this in its own patch.
> > If its not really fixing any build bugs or functional bugs I don't see
> > the need. But if you really want it, I can do it.
> > 
> > Let me know!
> 
> Yes, I really want it.
> 
> Please remove all the x86 bits from _this_ patch.  If x86 has a
> separate, preexisting problem, please send that patch separately with a
> separate changelog and justification.
> 
> We'll take a look.

Sounds good.

  Luis