Re: + sysctl-add-proc_dointvec_unsigned-handler-update.patch added to -mm tree

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 17:51:50 +0800
Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:45 PM,  <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >> --- a/kernel/sysctl.c~sysctl-add-proc_dointvec_unsigned-handler-update
> >> +++ a/kernel/sysctl.c
> >> @@ -2515,6 +2515,7 @@ int proc_dointvec_unsigned(struct ctl_ta
> >>  {
> >>        struct do_proc_dointvec_minmax_conv_param param = {
> >>                .min = &zero,
> >> +               .max = (int *) table->extra2,
> >>        };
> >>        return do_proc_dointvec(table, write, buffer, lenp, ppos,
> >>                                do_proc_dointvec_minmax_conv, &param);
> >
> > This is still buggybecause "zero" is only 1 variable and max can be an array.
> > Sysctl boundary comparisons are done element-by-element.
> 
> Where's the array use case?

Guys, these patches:

sysctl-add-proc_dointvec_bool-handler.patch
sysctl-use-proc_dointvec_bool-where-appropriate.patch
sysctl-add-proc_dointvec_unsigned-handler.patch
sysctl-add-proc_dointvec_unsigned-handler-update.patch
sysctl-use-proc_dointvec_unsigned-where-appropriate.patch

are still floating about in my tree, and stuck.

As everyone has forgotten all about it I think I'll just drop the
patches.  If you're still motivated, please resend from scratch and
let's take another look at them.  And this time please let's drive the
discussion to a conclusion and not leave stuff floating around
unresolved for months?