[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 50/59] sysctl: Move utsname sysctls to their own file

To: "Eric W. Biederman" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 50/59] sysctl: Move utsname sysctls to their own file
From: Herbert Poetzl <>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 23:24:42 +0100
Cc: Kirill Korotaev <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
In-reply-to: <>
Mail-followup-to: "Eric W. Biederman" <>, Kirill Korotaev <>,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.11
On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 12:31:22PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Kirill Korotaev <> writes:
> > Eric, though I personally don't care much:
> > 1. I ask for not setting your authorship/copyright on the code which you 
> > just
> > copied
> >   from other places. Just doesn't look polite IMHO.
> I can't claim complete ownership of the code, there was plenty of feed back
> and contributions from others but the final form without a big switch
> statement is mine.  I certainly can't claim the table, it has been in
> that form for years.
> If you notice I actually didn't say whose copyright it was :)  just
> that I wrote the file.
> If there are copyright claims I should include I will be happy to do that.
> Mostly I was just trying to find some stupid boiler plate that would work.

IMHO that is fine ...

> > 2. I would propose to not introduce utsname_sysctl.c.
> >   both files are too small and minor that I can't see much reasons splitting
> > them.
> The impact of moving this code out of sysctl.c is a major
> simplification, to sysctl.c.  Putting them in their own file means we
> can cleanly restrict the code to only be compiled CONFIG_SYSCTL is set.
> It is a necessary first step to implementing a per process /proc/sys.
> It reorganizes the ipc and utsname sysctl from a terribly fragile
> structure to something that is robust and easy to follow.  Code
> scattered all throughout sysctl.c was just a disaster.  We had
> several instances of having to fix bugs with odd combinations of
> CONFIG options, simply because the other spot that needed to be touched
> wasn't obvious.
> So from my perspective this is an extremely worthwhile change that
> will make maintenance easier and is a small first step towards
> some nice future functionality.

yep, agreed ...


> Eric
> _______________________________________________
> Containers mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>