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?
Thanks,
Daniel
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?
Luis
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.
Thanks,
Daniel