On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 11:24:12AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > CTL_UNNUMBERED is unneeded, because it expands to
> >
> > .ctl_name = 0
> >
> > The same effect can be achieved by skipping .ctl_name initialization,
> > saving one line per sysctl.
> >
> > Update docs and headers telling people to not add CTL_ numbers and
> > giving example.
> >
> > This is probably all we can do to stop the flow of new CTL_ numbers,
> > because most of sysctls are copy-pasted. CTL_UNNUMBERED doesn't solve
> > this problem at all.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Nack. Not unless you update the documentation and explanations
> properly.
They are left in place:
Assigning binary sysctl numbers is an endless source of conflicts in
sysctl.h, breaking of the user space ABI (because of those conflicts),
and maintenance problems. A complete pass through all of the sysctl
users revealed multiple instances where the sysctl binary interface
was broken and had gone undetected for years.
> The important part is that we stop assigning binary numbers. You
> are removing part of the description of why we can not assign bianry
> numbers and how that is important.
You want me to rewrite that paragraph actually mentioning
CTL_UNNUMBERED?
> CTL_UNNUMBERED may be an irritant to you but as for actually using the
> code I have look and it is about 6 of 1 half dozen of the other.
Sorry, -EPARSE.
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
