Re: [PATCH v2 00/18] sysctl: constify sysctl ctl_tables

[Luis Chamberlain]

On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 06:16:53PM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> Hi Luis, Joel,
> 
> On 2023-12-05 09:04:08+0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > On 2023-12-04 21:50:14-0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 08:52:13AM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > > > Tested by booting and with the sysctl selftests on x86.
> > > 
> > > Can I trouble you to rebase on sysctl-next?
> > > 
> > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/linux.git/log/?h=sysctl-next
> > 
> > Will do.
> 
> The rebased series is now available at
> https://git.sr.ht/~t-8ch/linux b4/const-sysctl

I've applied this to sysctl-next as this all looks very sensible to me,
except one patch which I'll chime in on, but I'm merging it to
sysctl-next now without a promise to get this in as I really would like
this to soak in on linux-next for a bit even if it does not get merged
in the next kernel release. Exposing it on linux-next will surely
iron out run time issues fast.

> Nothing much has changed in contrast to v2.
> The only functional change so far is the initialization of
> ctl_table_header::type in init_header().
> 
> I'll wait for Joels and maybe some more reviews before resending it.

It all is very trivial stuff, except a few patches, but it all is making
sense, so my ask is to address feedback this week and post next week
a new set so we can have changes merged as-is for Linux in case this
really doesn't break anything.

For some reason I raccall seeing som hacky sysclts that shared and
modified an entry somewhere but the exact sysctl phases me, and I just
cannot recall.

> > [..]
> 
> For the future I think it would make sense to combine the tree-wide constification
> of the structs with the removal of the sentinel values.
> 
> This would reduce the impacts of the maintainers.

Indeed.

  Luis