Re: CTL_UNNUMBERED (Re: [PATCH] 9p: Don't use binary sysctl numbers.)

2007-07-23 Thread Eric W. Biederman
"Eric Van Hensbergen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 7/23/07, Latchesar Ionkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It doesn't really matter (for me) whether it is sysctl or sysfs >> interface. The sysctl approach seemed easier to implement. If the >> consensus is to use sysfs, I'll send a patch (for 2

Re: CTL_UNNUMBERED (Re: [PATCH] 9p: Don't use binary sysctl numbers.)

2007-07-23 Thread Alexey Dobriyan
On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 04:36:03PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > That's separate patch but CTL_UNNUMBERED must die, because it's totally > > unneeded. If you don't want sysctl(2) interface just SKIP ->ctl_name > > initialization and save one line

Re: CTL_UNNUMBERED (Re: [PATCH] 9p: Don't use binary sysctl numbers.)

2007-07-23 Thread Eric Van Hensbergen
On 7/23/07, Latchesar Ionkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It doesn't really matter (for me) whether it is sysctl or sysfs interface. The sysctl approach seemed easier to implement. If the consensus is to use sysfs, I'll send a patch (for 2.6.24). Sorry for the incorrect implementation, I guess I s

Re: CTL_UNNUMBERED (Re: [PATCH] 9p: Don't use binary sysctl numbers.)

2007-07-23 Thread Latchesar Ionkov
It doesn't really matter (for me) whether it is sysctl or sysfs interface. The sysctl approach seemed easier to implement. If the consensus is to use sysfs, I'll send a patch (for 2.6.24). Sorry for the incorrect implementation, I guess I stole the code from unappropriate place :) Thanks, Luc

Re: CTL_UNNUMBERED (Re: [PATCH] 9p: Don't use binary sysctl numbers.)

2007-07-23 Thread Eric Van Hensbergen
On 7/21/07, Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > That's separate patch but CTL_UNNUMBERED must die, because it's totally > unneeded. If you don't want sysctl(2) interface just SKIP ->ctl_name > initialization and save one line for something

Re: CTL_UNNUMBERED (Re: [PATCH] 9p: Don't use binary sysctl numbers.)

2007-07-21 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > That's separate patch but CTL_UNNUMBERED must die, because it's totally > unneeded. If you don't want sysctl(2) interface just SKIP ->ctl_name > initialization and save one line for something useful. As for the 9p code it doesn't seem to need or wan

Re: CTL_UNNUMBERED (Re: [PATCH] 9p: Don't use binary sysctl numbers.)

2007-07-21 Thread Andrew Morton
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 00:57:09 +0400 Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 12:53:19PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > The recent 9p commit: bd238fb431f31989898423c8b6496bc8c4204a86 > > that supposedly only moved files also introduced a new 9p sysctl > > interface t

CTL_UNNUMBERED (Re: [PATCH] 9p: Don't use binary sysctl numbers.)

2007-07-21 Thread Alexey Dobriyan
On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 12:53:19PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > The recent 9p commit: bd238fb431f31989898423c8b6496bc8c4204a86 > that supposedly only moved files also introduced a new 9p sysctl > interface that did not properly register it's sysctl binary numbers, > and since it was only for d