On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 09:40:58PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 4/13/22 9:00 PM, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 04:45:00PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > > On 4/7/22 9:07 AM, Yan Zhu wrote:
> > > > We're moving sysctls out of kernel/sysctl.c as its a mess. We
> > > > already moved all filesystem sysctls out. And with time the goal is
> > > > to move all sysctls out to their own subsystem/actual user.
> > > >
> > > > kernel/sysctl.c has grown to an insane mess and its easy to run
> > > > into conflicts with it. The effort to move them out is part of this.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Yan Zhu <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > Given the desire is to route this via sysctl-next and we're not shortly
> > > before but after the merge win, could we get a feature branch for bpf-next
> > > to pull from to avoid conflicts with ongoing development cycle?
> >
> > Sure thing. So I've never done this sort of thing, so forgive me for
> > being new at it. Would it make sense to merge this change to sysctl-next
> > as-is today and put a frozen branch sysclt-next-bpf to reflect this,
> > which bpf-next can merge. And then sysctl-next just continues to chug on
> > its own? As-is my goal is to keep sysctl-next as immutable as well.
> >
> > Or is there a better approach you can recommend?
>
> Are you able to merge the pr/bpf-sysctl branch into your sysctl-next tree?
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git/log/?h=pr/bpf-sysctl
>
> This is based off common base for both trees (3123109284176b1532874591f7c81f3837bbdc17)
> so should only pull in the single commit then.
Yup. That worked just fine. I pushed it.
Luis
On 4/13/22 9:46 PM, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 09:40:58PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> On 4/13/22 9:00 PM, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 04:45:00PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/22 9:07 AM, Yan Zhu wrote:
>>>>> We're moving sysctls out of kernel/sysctl.c as its a mess. We
>>>>> already moved all filesystem sysctls out. And with time the goal is
>>>>> to move all sysctls out to their own subsystem/actual user.
>>>>>
>>>>> kernel/sysctl.c has grown to an insane mess and its easy to run
>>>>> into conflicts with it. The effort to move them out is part of this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yan Zhu <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>> Given the desire is to route this via sysctl-next and we're not shortly
>>>> before but after the merge win, could we get a feature branch for bpf-next
>>>> to pull from to avoid conflicts with ongoing development cycle?
>>>
>>> Sure thing. So I've never done this sort of thing, so forgive me for
>>> being new at it. Would it make sense to merge this change to sysctl-next
>>> as-is today and put a frozen branch sysclt-next-bpf to reflect this,
>>> which bpf-next can merge. And then sysctl-next just continues to chug on
>>> its own? As-is my goal is to keep sysctl-next as immutable as well.
>>>
>>> Or is there a better approach you can recommend?
>>
>> Are you able to merge the pr/bpf-sysctl branch into your sysctl-next tree?
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bpf/bpf-next.git/log/?h=pr/bpf-sysctl
>>
>> This is based off common base for both trees (3123109284176b1532874591f7c81f3837bbdc17)
>> so should only pull in the single commit then.
>
> Yup. That worked just fine. I pushed it.
Great, thanks!