Re: [PATCH v2 00/18] sysctl: constify sysctl ctl_tables

[Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>]

On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 10:09:30AM +0100, Joel Granados wrote:
> My idea was to do something similar to your originl RFC, where you have
> an temporary proc_handler something like proc_hdlr_const (we would need
> to work on the name) and move each subsystem to the new handler while
> the others stay with the non-const one. At the end, the old proc_handler
> function name would disapear and would be completely replaced by the new
> proc_hdlr_const.
> 
> This is of course extra work and might not be worth it if you don't get
> negative feedback related to tree-wide changes. Therefore I stick to my
> previous suggestion. Send the big tree-wide patches and only explore
> this option if someone screams.

I think we can do better, can't we just increase confidence in that we
don't *need* muttable ctl_cables with something like smatch or
coccinelle so that we can just make them const?

Seems like a noble endeavor for us to generalize.

Then we just breeze through by first fixing those that *are* using
mutable tables by having it just de-register and then re-register
new tables if they need to be changed, and then a new series is sent
once we fix all those muttable tables.

  Luis