lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the parisc-hd tree
From
Date
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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-05-11 03:57    [W:0.781 / U:0.516 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site