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, 13 Apr 2022 12:46:02 -0700
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Cc:     Yan Zhu <zhuyan34@huawei.com>, andrii@kernel.org, ast@kernel.org,
        bpf@vger.kernel.org, john.fastabend@gmail.com, kafai@fb.com,
        keescook@chromium.org, kpsingh@kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        liucheng32@huawei.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        nixiaoming@huawei.com, songliubraving@fb.com,
        xiechengliang1@huawei.com, yhs@fb.com, yzaikin@google.com,
        zengweilin@huawei.com, leeyou.li@huawei.com,
        laiyuanyuan.lai@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 sysctl-next] bpf: move bpf sysctls from
 kernel/sysctl.c to bpf module
Message-ID: <YlcoevXO2t1pn3Pu@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <Yk4XE/hKGOQs5oq0@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <20220407070759.29506-1-zhuyan34@huawei.com>
 <3a82460b-6f58-6e7e-a3d9-141f42069eda@iogearbox.net>
 <Ylcd0zvHhi96zVi+@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <b615bd44-6bd1-a958-7e3f-dd2ff58931a1@iogearbox.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b615bd44-6bd1-a958-7e3f-dd2ff58931a1@iogearbox.net>
Sender: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

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 <zhuyan34@huawei.com>
> > > 
> > > Acked-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
> > > 
> > > 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