From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: sysctls Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:06:34 -0600 Message-ID: References: <20070425122924.88391585.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070425.130011.21926881.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:37498 "EHLO ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2993045AbXDYUHd (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:07:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070425.130011.21926881.davem@davemloft.net> (David Miller's message of "Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:00:11 -0700 (PDT)") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org David Miller writes: > From: Andrew Morton > Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:29:24 -0700 > >> >> I note that the networking tree is adding new sysctls: >> >> <<<<<<< HEAD/include/linux/sysctl.h >> NET_IPV6_ACCEPT_SOURCE_ROUTE=25, >> ======= >> NET_IPV6_OPTIMISTIC_DAD=24, >> NET_IPV6_ACCEPT_SOURCE_ROUTE=25, >> >>>>>>> /include/linux/sysctl.h >> >> (Well, it's trying to - there are some git rejects in net-2.6.22) > > I knew this was going to happen because of Yoshifuji's > security fix, the conflict is trivial to resolve. > > I'll rebase the net-2.6.22 tree later today since all > we should have before 2.6.21-final is the netlink > OOPS'er fix Alexey just posted. David for clarity do you happen to know of anyone using binary sysctl values? In particular is there any reason not to use CTL_UNNUMBERED for new networking sysctls? Eric