lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Aug]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: + sysctl-add-proc_dointvec_unsigned-handler-update.patch added to -mm tree
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:51:50 +0800
Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:45 PM, <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >> --- a/kernel/sysctl.c~sysctl-add-proc_dointvec_unsigned-handler-update
> >> +++ a/kernel/sysctl.c
> >> @@ -2515,6 +2515,7 @@ int proc_dointvec_unsigned(struct ctl_ta
> >> {
> >> struct do_proc_dointvec_minmax_conv_param param = {
> >> .min = &zero,
> >> + .max = (int *) table->extra2,
> >> };
> >> return do_proc_dointvec(table, write, buffer, lenp, ppos,
> >> do_proc_dointvec_minmax_conv, &param);
> >
> > This is still buggybecause "zero" is only 1 variable and max can be an array.
> > Sysctl boundary comparisons are done element-by-element.
>
> Where's the array use case?

Guys, these patches:

sysctl-add-proc_dointvec_bool-handler.patch
sysctl-use-proc_dointvec_bool-where-appropriate.patch
sysctl-add-proc_dointvec_unsigned-handler.patch
sysctl-add-proc_dointvec_unsigned-handler-update.patch
sysctl-use-proc_dointvec_unsigned-where-appropriate.patch

are still floating about in my tree, and stuck.

As everyone has forgotten all about it I think I'll just drop the
patches. If you're still motivated, please resend from scratch and
let's take another look at them. And this time please let's drive the
discussion to a conclusion and not leave stuff floating around
unresolved for months?



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-08-18 23:55    [W:0.056 / U:0.216 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site