[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070122222442.GD11128@MAIL.13thfloor.at>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 23:24:42 +0100
From: Herbert Poetzl <herbert@...hfloor.at>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru>, James.Bottomley@...elEye.com,
linux-parport@...ts.infradead.org, rtc-linux@...glegroups.com,
linux-mips@...ux-mips.org, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
containers@...ts.osdl.org, lethal@...ux-sh.org, clemens@...isch.de,
xfs@....sgi.com, xfs-masters@....sgi.com, paulus@...ba.org,
linux390@...ibm.com, openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-390@...marist.edu, aharkes@...cmu.edu, tim@...erelk.net,
codalist@...EMANN.coda.cs.cmu.edu, a.zummo@...ertech.it,
tony.luck@...el.com, minyard@....org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, linux-ntfs-dev@...ts.sourceforge.net,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ralf@...ux-mips.org, mark.fasheh@...cle.com, coda@...cmu.edu,
vojtech@...e.cz, kurt.hackel@...cle.com, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
aia21@...tab.net, philb@....org, andrea@...e.de,
linuxsh-shmedia-dev@...ts.sourceforge.net, ak@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 50/59] sysctl: Move utsname sysctls to their own file
On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 12:31:22PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Kirill Korotaev <dev@...ru> writes:
>
> > Eric, though I personally don't care much:
> > 1. I ask for not setting your authorship/copyright on the code which you just
> > copied
> > from other places. Just doesn't look polite IMHO.
>
> I can't claim complete ownership of the code, there was plenty of feed back
> and contributions from others but the final form without a big switch
> statement is mine. I certainly can't claim the table, it has been in
> that form for years.
>
> If you notice I actually didn't say whose copyright it was :) just
> that I wrote the file.
>
> If there are copyright claims I should include I will be happy to do that.
> Mostly I was just trying to find some stupid boiler plate that would work.
IMHO that is fine ...
> > 2. I would propose to not introduce utsname_sysctl.c.
> > both files are too small and minor that I can't see much reasons splitting
> > them.
>
> The impact of moving this code out of sysctl.c is a major
> simplification, to sysctl.c. Putting them in their own file means we
> can cleanly restrict the code to only be compiled CONFIG_SYSCTL is set.
>
> It is a necessary first step to implementing a per process /proc/sys.
>
> It reorganizes the ipc and utsname sysctl from a terribly fragile
> structure to something that is robust and easy to follow. Code
> scattered all throughout sysctl.c was just a disaster. We had
> several instances of having to fix bugs with odd combinations of
> CONFIG options, simply because the other spot that needed to be touched
> wasn't obvious.
>
> So from my perspective this is an extremely worthwhile change that
> will make maintenance easier and is a small first step towards
> some nice future functionality.
yep, agreed ...
best,
Herbert
> Eric
> _______________________________________________
> Containers mailing list
> Containers@...ts.osdl.org
> https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
-
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