Re: CTL_UNNUMBERED (Re: [PATCH] 9p: Don't use binary sysctl numbers.)

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 00:57:09 +0400 Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 12:53:19PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > The recent 9p commit: bd238fb431f31989898423c8b6496bc8c4204a86
> > that supposedly only moved files also introduced a new 9p sysctl
> > interface that did not properly register it's sysctl binary numbers,
> > and since it was only for debugging clearly did not need a binary fast
> > path in any case.  So this patch just remove the binary numbers.
> >
> > See Documentation/sysctl/ctl_unnumbered.txt for more details.
> >
> > While I was at it I cleaned up the sysctl initializers a little as
> > well so there is less to read.
> 
> > --- a/net/9p/sysctl.c
> > +++ b/net/9p/sysctl.c
> > @@ -28,15 +28,10 @@
> 
> > -enum {
> > -	P9_SYSCTL_NET = 487,
> > -	P9_SYSCTL_DEBUG = 1,
> > -};
> > -
> > -static ctl_table p9_table[] = {
> > +static struct ctl_table p9_table[] = {
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_NET_9P_DEBUG
> >  	{
> > -		.ctl_name       = P9_SYSCTL_DEBUG,
> > +		.ctl_name       = CTL_UNNUMBERED,
> 
> That's separate patch but CTL_UNNUMBERED must die, because it's totally
> unneeded. If you don't want sysctl(2) interface just SKIP ->ctl_name
> initialization and save one line for something useful.
> 
> 	{
> 		.procname       = "prove_locking",
> 		.data		= &prove_locking,
> 		.maxlen		= sizeof(int),
> 		.mode		= 0644,
> 		.proc_handler	= &proc_dointvec,
> 	},
> 
> Or too late for -rc1?

It might be too late for -rc1 but it isn't too late for 2.6.23.

This affects a userspace interface.  Let's get it right please,
no rush.