Re: [PATCH v2] sysctl: treewide: constify the ctl_table argument of proc_handlers

[Joel Granados]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 09:41:36AM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> Hi Joel,
> 
> On 2024-07-17 21:57:48+0000, Joel Granados wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 05:26:44PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > > On 2024-07-16 17:27:05+0000, Joel Granados wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 10:58:10PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > > > > On 2024-07-15 22:23:19+0000, Joel Granados wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > > > > The merge window is now open. I want to send this patch on the Wednesday
> > > > > > of next week (jul 24).
> > > 
> > > <snip>
> > > 
> > > > > > 2. Does it still apply cleanly against the latest master branch?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Not against mainline master, but against next-20240715.
> > > > > To apply cleanly (and compile) on mainline master it still requires the
> > > > > net/ and sysctl trees to be merged.
> > > > > Otherwise some modified functions are missing, leading to (trivial) merge
> > > > > conflicts or the preparation commits are missing, leading to compilation
> > > > > errors.
> > > > 
> > > > Understood. I have just sent Linus the changes for sysctl-next, so those
> > > > should land in master soon (baring any issues with the pull request).
> > > > 
> > > > These [1] and [2] are the two series in net-dev that are the deps for
> > > > the constification treewide patch. Once these two go into mainline, then
> > > > we are good to go. Right?
> > > 
> > > Right, but...
> > > 
> > > It turns out the preparation patch for mm/hugetlb.c [0] is also still
> > > missing. I missed it in all the errors triggered in net/.
> > > But as far as I can see this patch will be part of Andrew's PR for mm.
> > 
> > Thx for the heads up, I'll Add that one to my radar of things that need
> > to be in master before we send the PR to Linus. Will check these three
> > dependencies on Wednesday next week and send your V2 [3] if I see that
> > it applies cleanly.
> 
> All dependency PRs (sysctl, net, mm) are now merged.
> My compilation tests all succeed now.

How did you apply the coccinelle script? I ask because if I do this:
```
 make coccicheck MODE=patch SPFLAGS="--in-place --include-headers" COCCI=SCRIPT
```

I have to add "virtual patch" to the first line of the script you had
sent. So it would look like this:
```
virtual patch

@@
identifier func, ctl, write, buffer, lenp, ppos;
@@

int func(
- struct ctl_table *ctl,
+ const struct ctl_table *ctl,
  int write, void *buffer, size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos)
{ ... }
```

Additionally, this cocci script is not changing the header files. Even
if I pass --include-headers. Did you change those by hand?

Best

> 
> > > <snip>
> > > 
> > > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240518-sysctl-const-handler-hugetlb-v1-1-47e34e2871b2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > > 
> > > > [1] net: constify ctl_table arguments of utility functions
> > > >     https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=856252&state=%2A&archive=both
> > > > [2] bpf: constify member bpf_sysctl_kern::table
> > > >     https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=854191&state=*
> > 
> > [3] https://lore.kernel.org/20240619-sysctl-const-handler-v2-1-e36d00707097@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

-- 

Joel Granados