[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTimu68E0_U0w8XAtLQztHY6vJqkPVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 10:51:15 -0300
From: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...fusion.mobi>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysctl: remove impossible condition check
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Eric W. Biederman
<ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
>> Looking again at the code, I'm wondering if this is not actually a
>> bug. There might be entries with procname == NULL, meaning they are
>> not mirrored in /proc. What seems wrong is the condition in the for().
>> It should stop when all fields are 0 (meaning the end of the table)
>> instead of stopping when procname is NULL.
>
> It is not a bug. The condition was originally p->ctlname then
> it became p->ctlname || p->procname and then finally I was able to
> kill ctl_name.
>
> What you see is a left over that didn't get removed.
>
Alright then.
> This is also the second time in the last couple of weeks someone has
> sent this patch.
>
> There is some ongoing work to make sysctl scale better that with
> any luck should be ready for 3.1. Decide which version of this
> patch you like and please resend, and I will add this to my
> sysctl tree.
There's also the same thing in this file, in scan() function. I'll add
it to the previous patch and resend.
thanks
Lucas De Marchi
--
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