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, 24 May 2023 00:30:37 -0700
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc:     keescook@chromium.org, yzaikin@google.com, ebiederm@xmission.com,
        arnd@arndb.de, bp@alien8.de, James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com,
        deller@gmx.de, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
        dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com,
        luto@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, brgerst@gmail.com,
        christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com,
        jroedel@suse.de, j.granados@samsung.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        willy@infradead.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] signal: move show_unhandled_signals sysctl to its
 own file
Message-ID: <ZG29HWE9NWn56hTg@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <20230522210814.1919325-1-mcgrof@kernel.org>
 <20230522210814.1919325-3-mcgrof@kernel.org>
 <d0fe7a6f-8cd9-0b81-758a-f3b444e74bab@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d0fe7a6f-8cd9-0b81-758a-f3b444e74bab@intel.com>
Sender: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 07:16:55AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 5/22/23 14:08, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/umip.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/umip.c
> > @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
> >  #include <asm/insn.h>
> >  #include <asm/insn-eval.h>
> >  #include <linux/ratelimit.h>
> > +#include <linux/signal.h>
> 
> Oh, so this is actually fixing a bug: umip.c uses
> 'show_unhandled_signals' but it doesn't explicitly include
> linux/signal.h where 'show_unhandled_signals' is declared.

Fixes a non-critical bug perhaps, but I doubt it would be fixing
a functional bug as otherwise folks would have reported a build bug, no?

What or how it ends up including that file today to avoid build
failures is beyond me.

> It doesn't actually have anything to do with moving the
> show_unhandled_signals sysctl, right?

Well in my case it is making sure the sysctl variable used is declared
as well.

> If that's the case, it would be nice to have this in its own patch.

If its not really fixing any build bugs or functional bugs I don't see
the need. But if you really want it, I can do it.

Let me know!

  Luis