Simon Horman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hi Christian, Hi Dave, > > I have indeed been looking into this of late. Assuming that you use of > CTL_UNNUMBERED is correct, this patch looks fine to me. Acked. > > I was planning to do the same and also switch over all the other entries > over to use CTL_UNNUMBERED, as its hard to imagine that anyone is using > the sys_sysctl interface to IPVS. > > As for the commented out entries. They are supposed to be exposed by > some other means - I believe the thinking was to comply with the don't > expose stuff in proc any more idea. Where is the best place to expose > this kind of stuff? > > Lastly, as Dave mentions, I'm travelling this week, so please > excuse any slowness.
Looking at this patch it looks sane enough. Either removing ctl_name or explicitly using CTL_UNNUMBERED is fine. It may be wise to leave the binary entries in ip_vs.h and sysctl_check.c as documentation, but even there it doesn't much matter since we don't plan on adding more. Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
