On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 02:47:18PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > On 03/29/2018 02:15 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:39:19AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > >> On 03/16/2018 09:10 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >>> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 02:13:42PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote: > >>>> When the CTL_FLAGS_CLAMP_RANGE flag is set in the ctl_table > >>>> entry, any update from the userspace will be clamped to the given > >>>> range without error if either the proc_dointvec_minmax() or the > >>>> proc_douintvec_minmax() handlers is used. > >>> I don't get it. Why define a generic range flag when we can be mores > >>> specific and > >>> you do that in your next patch. What's the point of this flag then? > >>> > >>> Luis > >> I was thinking about using the signed/unsigned bits as just annotations > >> for ranges for future extension. For the purpose of this patchset alone, > >> I can merge the three bits into just two. > > Only introduce flags which you will actually use in the same patch series. > > > > Luis > > Yes, will do. Since the merge window is coming, should I wait until it > is over to send out the new patch?
Probably best. May be too tight for review now if Linus spins out a release this weekend. Luis
