Re: linux-next: manual merge of the sysctl tree with the mm-nonmm-unstable tree

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>]

Joel, et al,

First of all, sorry for the hassle caused by my patches ;)

On 08/05, Joel Granados wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2026 at 01:14:07PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > How about I remove
> >
> > 	sysctl: move the "cad_pid" entry from pid_table[] to kern_reboot_table[]
> > 	https://lore.kernel.org/al4C572uhLdBvyzH@redhat.com
> >
> > and
> >
> > 	sysctl: remove CONFIG_PROC_SYSCTL, it just mirrors CONFIG_SYSCTL
> > 	https://lore.kernel.org/amdveg1m4E4uQlGv@redhat.com
> >
> > from mm.git then forget all about them ;)
>
> Works for me. I had already picked up the first, I'll add the second to
> sysctl-next and they will go upstream through the sysctl tree.

From [PATCH -mm v2 0/1] sysctl: remove CONFIG_PROC_SYSCTL, it just mirrors CONFIG_SYSCTL

	If this patch is accepted, I'll send a couple of followup cleanups:

		kernel/sysctl.c:
			collapse the now-identical CONFIG_SYSCTL nesting

		drivers/parport/procfs.c, fs/dcache.c, and fs/file_table.c:
			drop the CONFIG_PROC_FS checks, now it is clear that
			CONFIG_SYSCTL depends on it

Now that I see both patches in
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/joel.granados/linux.git/log/?h=jag/sysctl
let me ask..

Can I send these (minor) cleanups based on sysctl-next to you right now
(before I forget it ;) ?

Or it would be better to do this later, after they go upstream?

Oleg.