Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the parisc-hd tree | From | Xiaoming Ni <> | Date | Mon, 11 May 2020 09:55:16 +0800 |
| |
On 2020/5/11 9:11, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: > > kernel/sysctl.c > > between commit: > > b6522fa409cf ("parisc: add sysctl file interface panic_on_stackoverflow") > > from the parisc-hd tree and commit: > > f461d2dcd511 ("sysctl: avoid forward declarations") > > from the vfs tree. > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This > is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial > conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree > is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating > with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly > complex conflicts. >
Kernel/sysctl.c contains more than 190 interface files, and there are a large number of config macro controls. When modifying the sysctl interface directly in kernel/sysctl.c , conflicts are very easy to occur.
At the same time, the register_sysctl_table() provided by the system can easily add the sysctl interface, and there is no conflict of kernel/sysctl.c .
Should we add instructions in the patch guide (coding-style.rst submitting-patches.rst): Preferentially use register_sysctl_table() to add a new sysctl interface, centralize feature codes, and avoid directly modifying kernel/sysctl.c ?
In addition, is it necessary to transfer the architecture-related sysctl interface to arch/xxx/kernel/sysctl.c ?
Thanks Xiaoming Ni
| |