From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/59] Cleanup sysctl Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:03:36 -0700 Message-ID: References: <45AD02FF.605@zytor.com> <45AD1AD7.7030804@zytor.com> <45AD2042.9090701@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linux Containers , Tony Luck , netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:42506 "EHLO ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750949AbXAPTFM (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:05:12 -0500 To: "H. Peter Anvin" In-Reply-To: <45AD2042.9090701@zytor.com> (H. Peter Anvin's message of "Tue, 16 Jan 2007 10:58:10 -0800") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org "H. Peter Anvin" writes: > Eric W. Biederman wrote: >>>> >>> With "architectural" I mean "guaranteed to be stable" (as opposed to >>> "incidental"). Sorry for the confusion. >> >> Ok. Then largely we are in agreement. To implement that the rule is simple. >> If it isn't CTL_UNNUMBERED and the number is in Linus's tree, it is >> our responsibility to never change the meaning of that number. >> >> If a new sysctl entry is introduced it should be CTL_UNNUMBERED until >> it reaches Linus's tree to avoid conflicts. >> >> There is simply no point in having any kind of support for numbers >> whose meanings can change. >> >> Which is why I removed the few cases of binary number duplication I >> found. >> > > Agreed. *Furthermore*, if the number isn't in it shouldn't > exist anywhere else, either. That would be a good habit. Feel free to send the patches to ensure that is so. I'm a practical fix it when it is in my way kind of guy ;) Eric