[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1ac0iby5q.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 11:54:09 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/59] Cleanup sysctl
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> writes:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>>> I think it would be fair to say that if they're not in <linux/sysctl.h>
> they're
>>> not architectural, but that doesn't resolve the counterpositive (are there
>>> sysctls in <linux/sysctl.h> which aren't architectural? From the looks of
> it, I
>>> would say yes.) Non-architectural sysctl numbers should not be exported to
>>> userspace, and should eventually be rejected by sys_sysctl.
>>
>> This last bit doesn't make much sense. I believe you are saying all sysctl
>> numbers should be per architecture.
>>
>
> With "architectural" I mean "guaranteed to be stable" (as opposed to
> "incidental"). Sorry for the confusion.
Ok. Then largely we are in agreement. To implement that the rule is simple.
If it isn't CTL_UNNUMBERED and the number is in Linus's tree, it is
our responsibility to never change the meaning of that number.
If a new sysctl entry is introduced it should be CTL_UNNUMBERED until
it reaches Linus's tree to avoid conflicts.
There is simply no point in having any kind of support for numbers
whose meanings can change.
Which is why I removed the few cases of binary number duplication I
found.
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists