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;
Message-ID: <603f5357-3018-6c1b-2dc8-ec96aee9552c@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 May 2023 11:52:58 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] signal: move show_unhandled_signals sysctl to its own
 file
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
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
References: <20230522210814.1919325-1-mcgrof@kernel.org>
 <20230522210814.1919325-3-mcgrof@kernel.org>
 <d0fe7a6f-8cd9-0b81-758a-f3b444e74bab@intel.com>
 <ZG29HWE9NWn56hTg@bombadil.infradead.org>
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZG29HWE9NWn56hTg@bombadil.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 5/24/23 00:30, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
>> 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.

But what does this have to do with _this_ patch?  This:

> --- 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>

For instance.  You don't move things to another header or make *ANY*
change to the compilation of umip.c.  So why patch it?

It looks to me like a _fundamentally_ superfluous change.  That hunk
literally *can't* be related to the rest of the patch.

>> 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!

Yes, I really want it.

Please remove all the x86 bits from _this_ patch.  If x86 has a
separate, preexisting problem, please send that patch separately with a
separate changelog and justification.

We'll take a look.