Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 27 Jul 2007 18:52:35 +0400 | From | Alexey Dobriyan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Remove CTL_UNNUMBERED |
| |
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 11:24:12AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@sw.ru> writes: > > > CTL_UNNUMBERED is unneeded, because it expands to > > > > .ctl_name = 0 > > > > The same effect can be achieved by skipping .ctl_name initialization, > > saving one line per sysctl. > > > > Update docs and headers telling people to not add CTL_ numbers and > > giving example. > > > > This is probably all we can do to stop the flow of new CTL_ numbers, > > because most of sysctls are copy-pasted. CTL_UNNUMBERED doesn't solve > > this problem at all. > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@sw.ru> > > Nack. Not unless you update the documentation and explanations > properly.
They are left in place:
Assigning binary sysctl numbers is an endless source of conflicts in sysctl.h, breaking of the user space ABI (because of those conflicts), and maintenance problems. A complete pass through all of the sysctl users revealed multiple instances where the sysctl binary interface was broken and had gone undetected for years.
> The important part is that we stop assigning binary numbers. You > are removing part of the description of why we can not assign bianry > numbers and how that is important.
You want me to rewrite that paragraph actually mentioning CTL_UNNUMBERED?
> CTL_UNNUMBERED may be an irritant to you but as for actually using the > code I have look and it is about 6 of 1 half dozen of the other.
Sorry, -EPARSE.
- 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/
| |