Re: linux-next: manual merge of the sysctl tree with the mm-nonmm-unstable tree
Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-next,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Joel, et al, First of all, sorry for the hassle caused by my patches ;) On 08/05, Joel Granados wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 04, 2026 at 01:14:07PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > How about I remove > > > > sysctl: move the "cad_pid" entry from pid_table[] to kern_reboot_table[] > > https://lore.kernel.org/[email protected] > > > > and > > > > sysctl: remove CONFIG_PROC_SYSCTL, it just mirrors CONFIG_SYSCTL > > https://lore.kernel.org/[email protected] > > > > from mm.git then forget all about them ;) > > Works for me. I had already picked up the first, I'll add the second to > sysctl-next and they will go upstream through the sysctl tree. From [PATCH -mm v2 0/1] sysctl: remove CONFIG_PROC_SYSCTL, it just mirrors CONFIG_SYSCTL If this patch is accepted, I'll send a couple of followup cleanups: kernel/sysctl.c: collapse the now-identical CONFIG_SYSCTL nesting drivers/parport/procfs.c, fs/dcache.c, and fs/file_table.c: drop the CONFIG_PROC_FS checks, now it is clear that CONFIG_SYSCTL depends on it Now that I see both patches in https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/joel.granados/linux.git/log/?h=jag/sysctl let me ask.. Can I send these (minor) cleanups based on sysctl-next to you right now (before I forget it ;) ? Or it would be better to do this later, after they go upstream? Oleg.