Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] cleaning up the sysctls table (hung_task watchdog)

[Xiaoming Ni <nixiaoming@huawei.com>]

On 2020/5/19 1:16, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 11:59:53AM +0800, Xiaoming Ni wrote:
>> Kernel/sysctl.c contains more than 190 interface files, and there are a
>> large number of config macro controls. When modifying the sysctl
>> interface directly in kernel/sysctl.c, conflicts are very easy to occur.
>> E.g: https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/5/10/413.
> 
> FWIW un the future please avoid using lkmk.org and instead use
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/<MESSAGE-ID> for references.
> 
>> Use register_sysctl() to register the sysctl interface to avoid
>> merge conflicts when different features modify sysctl.c at the same time.
>>
>> So consider cleaning up the sysctls table, details are in:
>> 	https://kernelnewbies.org/KernelProjects/proc
>> 	https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/5/13/990
>>
>> The current patch set extracts register_sysctl_init and some sysctl_vals
>> variables, and clears the interface of hung_task and watchdog in sysctl.c.
>>
>> The current patch set is based on commit b9bbe6ed63b2b9 ("Linux 5.7-rc6"),
>> which conflicts with the latest branch of linux-next:
>> 	9b4caf6941fc41d ("kernel / hung_task.c: introduce sysctl to print
>> all traces when a hung task is detected")
>>
>> Should I modify to make patch based on the "linux-next" branch to avoid
>> conflicts, or other branches?
> 
> If you can do that, that would be appreciated. I have a sysctl fs cleanup
> stuff, so I can take your patches, and put my work ont op of yours and
> then send this to Andrew once done.
> 
>    Luis
> 
Ok, I will redo the v4 version based on the linux-next branch as soon as 
possible

I want to continue to participate in the subsequent sysctl cleanup, how 
to push the subsequent cleanup patch to your series, and minimize conflict

Thanks
Xiaoming Ni