[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090628214855.GC6760@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 23:48:55 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, earl_chew@...lent.com,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] exec: Make do_coredump more robust and safer when using pipes in core_pattern
> Andrew should I toss all 100 or so patches over the wall to you
> and your -mm tree? Or should I maintain a public git tree based
> at 2.6.31-rc1? Get it into linux-next and ask Linus to pull it when
> the merge window comes?
What do these 100 odd patches do exactly?
I think DEFINE_SYSCTL()/ELF section would be the correct direction to go
for all global variable sysctls.
Then the binary sysctls could be handled by a global table
in a separate file like you described
[My old patch back then also had a sysctl_name() syscall to still
allow changing sysctl without mounting /proc, but that wasn't
very popular]
For dynamically generated sysctls (relatively rare but there)
the current interfaces are not great, but could be probably kept.
That all doesn't really need 100 patches though.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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