lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH-next 2/3] sysctl/sysrq: Remove __sysrq_enabled copy
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 09:45:30PM +0000, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On 1/10/20 4:40 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 09:54:43PM +0000, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> [..]
> >> @@ -2844,6 +2827,26 @@ static int proc_dostring_coredump(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
> >> }
> >> #endif
> >>
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_MAGIC_SYSRQ
> >> +static int sysrq_sysctl_handler(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
> >> + void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos)
> >> +{
> >> + int tmp, ret;
> >> +
> >> + tmp = sysrq_get_mask();
> >> +
> >> + ret = __do_proc_dointvec(&tmp, table, write, buffer,
> >> + lenp, ppos, NULL, NULL);
> >> + if (ret || !write)
> >> + return ret;
> >> +
> >> + if (write)
> >> + sysrq_toggle_support(tmp);
> >> +
> >> + return 0;
> >> +}
> >> +#endif
> >
> > Why did you move this function down here? Can't it stay where it is and
> > you can just fix the logic there? Now you have two different #ifdef
> > blocks intead of just one :(
>
> Yeah, well __do_proc_dointvec() made me do it.
>
> sysrq_sysctl_handler() declaration should be before ctl_table array of
> sysctls, so I couldn't remove the forward-declaration.
>
> So, I could forward-declare __do_proc_dointvec() instead, but looking at
> the neighborhood, I decided to follow the file-style (there is a couple
> of forward-declarations before the sysctl array, some under ifdefs).
>
> I admit that the result is imperfect and can put __do_proc_dointvec()
> definition before instead, no hard feelings.

Ah, no, nevermind, I missed that reason, sorry about that. Moving it is
fine.

greg k-h

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-10 23:02    [W:0.050 / U:2.656 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site