Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] sysctl: treewide: constify ctl_table argument of sysctl handlers

[Joel Granados]

On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 09:32:24PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> (+Cc LKML to at least get the conversation into the archives)
> 
> Hi Joel,
...
> 
> > Not only that, but it also breaks tools like lei and b4. I have configured b4 to
> > look at https://lore.kernel.org/all to handle patches coming from contributors.
> > If the change is not public it breaks my command (`b4 am -o - MESSAGE_ID | git
> > am -3`).
> 
> Understood, as mentioned above the trimming went to far.
> 
> FYI:
> b4 can do the `git am` itself with `b4 shazam MESSAGE_ID`.
> Use the config `b4.shazam-am-flags` for the `-3` flag.

Thx for the tip.

> 
> > I do not know who spooked you but I suggest you just remove this person
> > from the to:/cc: of your patches and leave the rest as it is. Like I
> > did with Mathew Wilcox after he asked me to do so here
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZZbJRiN8ENV%2FFoTV@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/.
> > Please resend the patchset including the relevant kernel mailing lists and
> > maintainers but excepting the person that sent you the private e-mail.
> 
> In addition to the complaint I also got guidance from Thomas Gleixner to
> reduce the scope of recipients.
> 
> What do you think about the following:
> 
> You do a review of v2 and give feedback on that and I'll incorporate
> that feedback and afterwards send a v3.
This will *not* work and this is why:
1. I will not be able to use b4 to gather SOBs (and the like) because
   there is no original mail
2. The review would be confusing in public as the original message will
   not have existed.
3. I will most likely forget to add relevant recepients.

Please resend the patch. `b4 send --resend [vN]` should work after you
have added the additional CCs.

> In addition to the recipients of v2 I'll add LKML, Greg and Andrew Morton.
It will just get lost in LKML. If you are *not* going to add all the
maintainers themselves, at least add the relevant kernel lists. These
are the lists that I propose (from running get_maintainers.pl on your
11/11 patch):

linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
linux-s390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx
linux-security-module@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
bpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
linux-trace-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
linux-perf-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
coreteam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
linux-hardening@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
lvs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
rds-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
linux-sctp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
apparmor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Its a long list because that patch touches everything :)


>  
> > This also goes for your "[PATCH] sysctl: treewide: constify ctl_table_header::ctl_table_arg"
> > which is also not public.
> 
> Thanks for this pointer, too.
> I'd like to handle it the same way as proposed above.
> 
> 
> Sorry for all the back-and-forth,
> Thomas

Best

-- 

Joel Granados

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature