Re: [PATCH v2] sysctl: treewide: constify the ctl_table argument of proc_handlers

["Thomas Weißschuh" <linux@weissschuh.net>]

On 2024-07-15 22:23:19+0000, Joel Granados wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 12:09:00PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > Adapt the proc_hander function signature to make it clear that handlers
> > are not supposed to modify their ctl_table argument.
> > 
> > This is also a prerequisite to moving the static ctl_table structs into
> > read-only data.
> > 
> > The patch was mostly generated by coccinelle with the following script:
> > 
> >     @@
> >     identifier func, ctl, write, buffer, lenp, ppos;
> >     @@
> > 
> >     int func(
> >     - struct ctl_table *ctl,
> >     + const struct ctl_table *ctl,
> >       int write, void *buffer, size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos)
> >     { ... }
> > 
> > In addition to the scripted changes some other changes are done:
> > 
> > * The "typedef proc_handler" in include/linux/sysctl.h is changed to use
> >   the "const ctl_table".
> > 
> > * The prototypes of non-static handlers in header-files are adapted
> >   to match the changes of their respective definitions.
> > 
> > * kernel/watchdog.c: proc_watchdog_common()
> >   This is called from a proc_handler itself and is als calling back
> >   into another proc_handler, making it necessary to change it as part
> >   of the proc_handler migration.
> > 
> > No functional change.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <linux@weissschuh.net>
> > ---
> 
> The merge window is now open. I want to send this patch on the Wednesday
> of next week (jul 24).

Sounds good.

> @Thomas: Some questions
> 
> 1. Are there any updates?

No.

> 2. Does it still apply cleanly against the latest master branch?

Not against mainline master, but against next-20240715.
To apply cleanly (and compile) on mainline master it still requires the
net/ and sysctl trees to be merged.
Otherwise some modified functions are missing, leading to (trivial) merge
conflicts or the preparation commits are missing, leading to compilation
errors.

> 3. Are you able to do the last update at the beginning of next week (Jul
>    22)?

Sure.


Thomas