From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AADB30C160 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2026 13:08:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784725683; cv=none; b=kUd2ro8Iff4sURXI3Ch75x7kbXEqiHiYnN/prHoKM93GBR8jAfOc1OTA3bHy86StNkUjJVqL0D4WcFfBJeedrTjNVt1djjmHKY5jrMKVh8mwXoe0mMd6oMQ8OwcguPwFpYBzPR8Yg8RM25Fvy6dzIbeukkeW0UMb6YFT+/sU3rY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784725683; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Cp1qgEIpxBET95dpfN2ypqH4ej5uZfS2hyOoW3eenLs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=tEZ4Z6JNBJbqSblLr9bE/0qewo5MPeXhbw2Fn1rdMWGd7WAKocXhcuWmm8KmlxCCNPccScUzdtAVOKSbpopksn4xC9GRg0nkY/7v0IiLMdfjSDg9SNg0hdZsFN8TRMAAzSfihpXdxw4sC1J+Qrc1roBzHYV+thNZSzZ6zov9EZg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=KgRagxDr; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="KgRagxDr" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D1E521F000E9; Wed, 22 Jul 2026 13:08:00 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1784725682; bh=8y4yO5iym2AS+bjujJd9onhket6HzcFzEv4sDam4qmg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=KgRagxDrkyhRX9b5u6WN+0uHGVsc5eCfVo4erGJay5CArbfOlIG/ZJR7D/Jk5VZtQ gm5w7nLgq6BJySf31n7ZizHs9ueffbhFGOc3UmdAOW2HA2BLFcHwgsh2hKUL+qNfGW k4kLvLg1A0Sp0sgnQJp/bYN1hO0EHgsnGPAOc1m5icyvmt9mw8rM3Vy5N8AJ3/Ckf8 p2fWXrkhqW7IIPXTevggfsu0CdrLifDYuq21BiuumxpOxLNjdpBaA5WeKWuZ2yjEE6 EUKRQ91zvt7mtwWDwUXdUnjfHj6YITrWGnSp9NQkFHM+UrNmNwwAj78lbujeG0MeVk 9i7lEYd/Q6Buw== Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2026 15:07:56 +0200 From: Alexey Gladkov To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Andrew Morton , "Eric W. Biederman" , Nathan Chancellor , Nicolas Schier , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] sysctl: remove CONFIG_SYSCTL, it just mirrors CONFIG_PROC_SYSCTL Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 02:44:07PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > Andrew, Eric, et al, > > To me it is a bit annoying/confusing to see both CONFIG_PROC_SYSCTL and > CONFIG_SYSCTL in the source code (they are the same thing), but... > > Does it make any sense to try to suggest this patch for -mm tree? > > It is hopefully trivial (generated by 2 perl one-liners) but touches 170 files. > So far I don't even CC maintainers, the output of get_maintainer.pl is huge. > > Alternatively, we could kill CONFIG_PROC_SYSCTL in favour of CONFIG_SYSCTL. > This would result in a much smaller patch, but I am not sure if it is "safe" > because CONFIG_PROC_SYSCTL is user-visible in that it has a prompt in > fs/proc/Kconfig. But perhaps this is fine? > > (either way we can make a couple more minor cleanups if we kill one of them). After 61a47c1ad3a4 ("sysctl: Remove the sysctl system call"), we have no other way to set sysctl values except through /proc/sys. So it makes sense for me to remove the duplicates. -- Rgrds, legion