[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20160928.075204.140017839812712683.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 07:52:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: zenczykowski@...il.com
Cc: maze@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, ek@...gle.com,
lorenzo@...gle.com, hannes@...essinduktion.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv6 addrconf: enable use of proc_dointvec_minmax in
addrconf_sysctl
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 07:49:01 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Maciej Żenczykowski <zenczykowski@...il.com>
> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 05:16:45 -0700
>
>> From: Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>
>
> I was about to ask you to submit this patch alongside an actual
> addition of a proc_dointvec_minmax user to the table.
>
> But upon second checking there is one, indirectly via
> addrconf_sysctl_mtu().
And actually these cases use a dummy sysctl blob on the stack to
provide the min/max values to proc_dointvec_minmax. And they do
it _EXACTLY_ because the extra pointers are for the netns pointer
and a pointer to the idev.
And any user envisioned can do the same thing, use a trampoline
like the existing cases do.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists