[Linux-parport] [PATCH 50/59] sysctl: Move utsname sysctls to their own file
herbert at 13thfloor.at
Mon Jan 22 17:24:42 EST 2007
On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 12:31:22PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Kirill Korotaev <dev at sw.ru> writes:
> > Eric, though I personally don't care much:
> > 1. I ask for not setting your authorship/copyright on the code which you just
> > copied
> > from other places. Just doesn't look polite IMHO.
> I can't claim complete ownership of the code, there was plenty of feed back
> and contributions from others but the final form without a big switch
> statement is mine. I certainly can't claim the table, it has been in
> that form for years.
> If you notice I actually didn't say whose copyright it was :) just
> that I wrote the file.
> If there are copyright claims I should include I will be happy to do that.
> Mostly I was just trying to find some stupid boiler plate that would work.
IMHO that is fine ...
> > 2. I would propose to not introduce utsname_sysctl.c.
> > both files are too small and minor that I can't see much reasons splitting
> > them.
> The impact of moving this code out of sysctl.c is a major
> simplification, to sysctl.c. Putting them in their own file means we
> can cleanly restrict the code to only be compiled CONFIG_SYSCTL is set.
> It is a necessary first step to implementing a per process /proc/sys.
> It reorganizes the ipc and utsname sysctl from a terribly fragile
> structure to something that is robust and easy to follow. Code
> scattered all throughout sysctl.c was just a disaster. We had
> several instances of having to fix bugs with odd combinations of
> CONFIG options, simply because the other spot that needed to be touched
> wasn't obvious.
> So from my perspective this is an extremely worthwhile change that
> will make maintenance easier and is a small first step towards
> some nice future functionality.
yep, agreed ...
> Containers mailing list
> Containers at lists.osdl.org
More information about the Linux-parport