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

[Joel Granados]

On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 02:27:04PM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> 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
That is the "move sysctl type to ctl_table_header" right?

> 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.
+1 for soaking it :)

> 
> > 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.
Any thoughts on the size of the tree-wide patches?

> 
> 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.
Its probably in net/*. There is were they are really taking advantage of
ctl_table.

> 
> > > [..]
> > 
> > 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

-- 

Joel Granados

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature