linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched: Move numa_balancing sysctls to its own file

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 8 Sep 2022 17:06:03 -0700
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Move numa_balancing sysctls to its own file

On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 03:25:31PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
> The sysctl_numa_balancing_promote_rate_limit and sysctl_numa_balancing
> are part of sched, move them to its own file.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>

There is quite a bit of random cleanup on each kernel release
for sysctls to do things like what you just did. Because of this it has its
own tree to help avoid conflicts. Can you base your patches on the
sysctl-testing branch here and re-submit:

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/linux.git/log/?h=sysctl-testing

If testing goes fine, then I'd move this to sysctl-next which linux-next
picks up for yet more testing.

Are scheduling folks OK with this patch and me picking it up on the
sysctl-next tree if all tests are a go?

  Luis