Re: [PATCH v3 -next 00/15] sysctl: move sysctls from vm_table into its own files

[yukaixiong <yukaixiong@huawei.com>]

On 2024/10/24 16:59, Joel Granados wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 04:07:10PM +0800, yukaixiong wrote:
> ...
>>
>>>>    mm/swap.c                          |  16 ++-
>>>>    mm/swap.h                          |   1 +
>>>>    mm/util.c                          |  67 +++++++--
>>>>    mm/vmscan.c                        |  23 +++
>>>>    mm/vmstat.c                        |  44 +++++-
>>>>    net/sunrpc/auth.c                  |   2 +-
>>>>    security/min_addr.c                |  11 ++
>>>>    23 files changed, 330 insertions(+), 312 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> 2.34.1
>>>>
>>> General comment for the patchset in general. I would consider making the
>>> new sysctl tables const. There is an effort for doing this and it has
>>> already lanted in linux-next. So if you base your patch from a recent
>>> next release, then it should just work. If you *do* decide to add a
>>> const qualifier, then note that you will create a dependency with the
>>> sysctl patchset currently in next and that will have to go in before.
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>> Sorry,  I don't understand what is the meaning of "create a dependency
>> with the sysctl patchset".
> The patches in the sysctl subsys that allow you to qualify the ctl_table
> as const are not in mainline yet. They are in linux-next. This means
> that if these patches go into the next kernel release before the
> sysctl-next branch, it will have compilation errors. Therefore the
> sysctl-next branch needs to be pulled in to the new kernel release
> before this patchest. This also means that for this to build properly it
> has to be based on a linux-next release.
>
>> Do you just want me to change all "static struct ctl_table" type table
>> into "static const struct ctl_table" type in my patchset?
> You should const qualify them if the maintainer that is pulling in these
> patches is ok with it. You should *not* const qualify them if the
> maintainer prefers otherwise.
>
> Please get back to me if I did not address your questions.
>
> Best

Thank you! Now， I decide to const qualify them. Maybe, it will be better.