Re: [PATCH v3 -next 00/15] sysctl: move sysctls from vm_table into its own files
yukaixiong <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.ports.sh.devel,gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.linux.file-systems,gmane.linux.kernel.mm,gmane.linux.nfs,gmane.linux.network,gmane.linux.kernel.lsm |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 2024/10/24 16:59, Joel Granados wrote: > On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 04:07:10PM +0800, yukaixiong wrote: > ... >> >>>> mm/swap.c | 16 ++- >>>> mm/swap.h | 1 + >>>> mm/util.c | 67 +++++++-- >>>> mm/vmscan.c | 23 +++ >>>> mm/vmstat.c | 44 +++++- >>>> net/sunrpc/auth.c | 2 +- >>>> security/min_addr.c | 11 ++ >>>> 23 files changed, 330 insertions(+), 312 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 2.34.1 >>>> >>> General comment for the patchset in general. I would consider making the >>> new sysctl tables const. There is an effort for doing this and it has >>> already lanted in linux-next. So if you base your patch from a recent >>> next release, then it should just work. If you *do* decide to add a >>> const qualifier, then note that you will create a dependency with the >>> sysctl patchset currently in next and that will have to go in before. >>> >>> Best >>> >> Sorry, I don't understand what is the meaning of "create a dependency >> with the sysctl patchset". > The patches in the sysctl subsys that allow you to qualify the ctl_table > as const are not in mainline yet. They are in linux-next. This means > that if these patches go into the next kernel release before the > sysctl-next branch, it will have compilation errors. Therefore the > sysctl-next branch needs to be pulled in to the new kernel release > before this patchest. This also means that for this to build properly it > has to be based on a linux-next release. > >> Do you just want me to change all "static struct ctl_table" type table >> into "static const struct ctl_table" type in my patchset? > You should const qualify them if the maintainer that is pulling in these > patches is ok with it. You should *not* const qualify them if the > maintainer prefers otherwise. > > Please get back to me if I did not address your questions. > > Best Thank you! Now, I decide to const qualify them. Maybe, it will be better.