Messages in this thread | | | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/59] Cleanup sysctl | Date | Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:03:36 -0700 |
| |
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> writes:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote: >>>> >>> With "architectural" I mean "guaranteed to be stable" (as opposed to >>> "incidental"). Sorry for the confusion. >> >> Ok. Then largely we are in agreement. To implement that the rule is simple. >> If it isn't CTL_UNNUMBERED and the number is in Linus's tree, it is >> our responsibility to never change the meaning of that number. >> >> If a new sysctl entry is introduced it should be CTL_UNNUMBERED until >> it reaches Linus's tree to avoid conflicts. >> >> There is simply no point in having any kind of support for numbers >> whose meanings can change. >> >> Which is why I removed the few cases of binary number duplication I >> found. >> > > Agreed. *Furthermore*, if the number isn't in <linux/sysctl.h> it shouldn't > exist anywhere else, either.
That would be a good habit. Feel free to send the patches to ensure that is so.
I'm a practical fix it when it is in my way kind of guy ;)
Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |