On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 04:49:29PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo > > I looked at it briefly some moments ago, couldn't find it so far, have > > to look at what was behind adding a sysctl for that :-\ > > > > And yeah, that entry/ctx thing, IIRC, was done to reduce patch size, > > probably needs some polishing to become clearer. > > > I believe fuzzer wasn't messing with sysctl's. > But, yeah, I guess it's really bad idea to try to change them on a > running system.
The sysctl's should return -EBUSY if its in use...
