[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <u2fwibsnbfvulxj6adigla6geiafh2vuve4hcyo4vmeytwjl7p@oz6xonrq5225>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2025 12:22:37 +0100
From: Joel Granados <joel.granados@...nel.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>, Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>,
Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
intel-xe@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, linux-aio@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
netfs@...ts.linux.dev, codalist@...a.cs.cmu.edu, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, ocfs2-devel@...ts.linux.dev, fsverity@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, apparmor@...ts.ubuntu.com, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
keyrings@...r.kernel.org, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
"Steven Rostedt (Google)" <rostedt@...dmis.org>, "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>, Corey Minyard <cminyard@...sta.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH v2] treewide: const qualify ctl_tables where
applicable
On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 03:42:39PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 04:55:58PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > You could have static const within functions too. You get the rodata
> > protection and function local scope, best of both worlds?
>
> timer_active is on the stack, so it can't be static const.
>
> Does this really need to be cc'd to such a wide distribution list?
That is a very good question. I removed 160 people from the original
e-mail and left the ones that where previously involved with this patch
and left all the lists for good measure. But it seems I can reduce it
even more.
How about this: For these treewide efforts I just leave the people that
are/were involved in the series and add two lists: linux-kernel and
linux-hardening.
Unless someone screams, I'll try this out on my next treewide.
Thx for the feedback
Best
--
Joel Granados
Powered by blists - more mailing lists