Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 16 Feb 2022 23:51:08 -0800
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To:     Zhen Ni <nizhen@uniontech.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc:     mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, keescook@chromium.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        tangmeng <tangmeng@uniontech.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] sched: Move a series of sysctls starting with
 sys/kernel/sched_*
Message-ID: <Yg3+bAQKVX+Dj317@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <20220215114604.25772-1-nizhen@uniontech.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220215114604.25772-1-nizhen@uniontech.com>
Sender: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 07:45:56PM +0800, Zhen Ni wrote:
> move a series of sysctls starting with sys/kernel/sched_* and use the
> new register_sysctl_init() to register the sysctl interface.

Peter, Andrew,

I'm starting to get more sysctl patches under kernel/ other than the
scheduler. To avoid low quality patches, try to see proactively what
conflicts may lie ahead, ensure everything is applies on linux-next,
and to ensure all this gets baked through 0-day for a while, I'm
going to shove all pending patches into a sysctl-next branch based on
Linus' tree.

I think it doesn't make sense now to just say, do this for sched for one
release. I think we need to get these more widely tested in a faster
way, and to get conflicts ironed out faster too.

Are you folks OK if say Stephen adds a sysctl-next for linux-next so
we can beat on these there too?

FWIW queued on sysctl-next [0].

[0] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mcgrof/linux.git/log/?h=sysctl-next

  Luis