There are two adjacent sysctl entries protected by the same
CONFIG_TREE_RCU config symbol. Merge them into a single block to
improve readability.
Use the more common "#ifdef" form while at it.
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>
---
kernel/sysctl.c | 4 +---
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sysctl.c b/kernel/sysctl.c
index 82bcf5e3009fa377..597069da18148f42 100644
--- a/kernel/sysctl.c
+++ b/kernel/sysctl.c
@@ -2227,7 +2227,7 @@ static struct ctl_table kern_table[] = {
.extra1 = SYSCTL_ZERO,
.extra2 = SYSCTL_ONE,
},
-#if defined(CONFIG_TREE_RCU)
+#ifdef CONFIG_TREE_RCU
{
.procname = "panic_on_rcu_stall",
.data = &sysctl_panic_on_rcu_stall,
@@ -2237,8 +2237,6 @@ static struct ctl_table kern_table[] = {
.extra1 = SYSCTL_ZERO,
.extra2 = SYSCTL_ONE,
},
-#endif
-#if defined(CONFIG_TREE_RCU)
{
.procname = "max_rcu_stall_to_panic",
.data = &sysctl_max_rcu_stall_to_panic,
--
2.25.1
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 08:25:41PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 08:57:37AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 05:07:31PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > There are two adjacent sysctl entries protected by the same
> > > CONFIG_TREE_RCU config symbol. Merge them into a single block to
> > > improve readability.
> > >
> > > Use the more common "#ifdef" form while at it.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>
> >
> > If you would like me to take this, please let me know. (The default
> > would be not the upcoming merge window, but the one after that.)
> >
> > If you would rather send it via some other path:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
>
> The one that that occurs to me is that while at it, Geert,
> can you also just then follow up with a patch 2/2 which then
> moves the sysctl out to the respective RCU code. If you look
> at linux-nxt kernel/sysctl.c is getting modified heavily with
> time to avoid stuffing everyone's sysctls there because this
> creates merge conflicts, make the file hard to read, and we
> have ways to split this.
>
> This work started about 2 kernel releases ago and is ongoing,
> it may take 3-4 more before kernel/sysctl.c stop being a kitchen
> sink of everyone's syctls.
>
> Paul, I've been collecting these modifications in a sysctl-next
> tree to avoid merge conflicts, and I try to not do to much per
> kernel release. If you like I can take this in for that tree
> as well, but as you noted, this would be for the next release,
> not the current one which we'll soon enter the merge window for.
>
> Let me know!
Please do take it!
Thanx, Paul
> Luis
> >
> > > ---
> > > kernel/sysctl.c | 4 +---
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sysctl.c b/kernel/sysctl.c
> > > index 82bcf5e3009fa377..597069da18148f42 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sysctl.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sysctl.c
> > > @@ -2227,7 +2227,7 @@ static struct ctl_table kern_table[] = {
> > > .extra1 = SYSCTL_ZERO,
> > > .extra2 = SYSCTL_ONE,
> > > },
> > > -#if defined(CONFIG_TREE_RCU)
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_TREE_RCU
> > > {
> > > .procname = "panic_on_rcu_stall",
> > > .data = &sysctl_panic_on_rcu_stall,
> > > @@ -2237,8 +2237,6 @@ static struct ctl_table kern_table[] = {
> > > .extra1 = SYSCTL_ZERO,
> > > .extra2 = SYSCTL_ONE,
> > > },
> > > -#endif
> > > -#if defined(CONFIG_TREE_RCU)
> > > {
> > > .procname = "max_rcu_stall_to_panic",
> > > .data = &sysctl_max_rcu_stall_to_panic,
> > > --
> > > 2.25.1
> > >
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 08:57:20PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 08:25:41PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 08:57:37AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 05:07:31PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > There are two adjacent sysctl entries protected by the same
> > > > CONFIG_TREE_RCU config symbol. Merge them into a single block to
> > > > improve readability.
> > > >
> > > > Use the more common "#ifdef" form while at it.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > If you would like me to take this, please let me know. (The default
> > > would be not the upcoming merge window, but the one after that.)
> > >
> > > If you would rather send it via some other path:
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]>
> >
> > The one that that occurs to me is that while at it, Geert,
> > can you also just then follow up with a patch 2/2 which then
> > moves the sysctl out to the respective RCU code. If you look
> > at linux-nxt kernel/sysctl.c is getting modified heavily with
> > time to avoid stuffing everyone's sysctls there because this
> > creates merge conflicts, make the file hard to read, and we
> > have ways to split this.
> >
> > This work started about 2 kernel releases ago and is ongoing,
> > it may take 3-4 more before kernel/sysctl.c stop being a kitchen
> > sink of everyone's syctls.
> >
> > Paul, I've been collecting these modifications in a sysctl-next
> > tree to avoid merge conflicts, and I try to not do to much per
> > kernel release. If you like I can take this in for that tree
> > as well, but as you noted, this would be for the next release,
> > not the current one which we'll soon enter the merge window for.
> >
> > Let me know!
>
> Please do take it!
Geert, I queued this up onto sysctl-next, but would hope you *might*
be inclined to move the sysctls out as outlined above to help with
the kitchen sink on kernel/sysctl.c.
Luis