From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BA12C38A2A for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 01:55:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 734BF2184D for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 01:55:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729192AbgEKBz1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 May 2020 21:55:27 -0400 Received: from szxga07-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.35]:51308 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729177AbgEKBz1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 May 2020 21:55:27 -0400 Received: from DGGEMS413-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.59]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 36CC5B2F649EB3DADC61; Mon, 11 May 2020 09:55:24 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.67.102.197) by DGGEMS413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.213) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.487.0; Mon, 11 May 2020 09:55:22 +0800 Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the vfs tree with the parisc-hd tree To: Stephen Rothwell , Al Viro , Helge Deller , Parisc List , , , , CC: Linux Next Mailing List , "Linux Kernel Mailing List" , Christoph Hellwig References: <20200511111123.68ccbaa3@canb.auug.org.au> From: Xiaoming Ni Message-ID: <99095805-8cbe-d140-e2f1-0c5a3e84d7e7@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 09:55:16 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200511111123.68ccbaa3@canb.auug.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.67.102.197] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-parisc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org On 2020/5/11 9:11, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the vfs tree got a conflict in: > > kernel/sysctl.c > > between commit: > > b6522fa409cf ("parisc: add sysctl file interface panic_on_stackoverflow") > > from the parisc-hd tree and commit: > > f461d2dcd511 ("sysctl: avoid forward declarations") > > from the vfs tree. > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This > is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial > conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree > is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating > with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly > complex conflicts. > 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. At the same time, the register_sysctl_table() provided by the system can easily add the sysctl interface, and there is no conflict of kernel/sysctl.c . Should we add instructions in the patch guide (coding-style.rst submitting-patches.rst): Preferentially use register_sysctl_table() to add a new sysctl interface, centralize feature codes, and avoid directly modifying kernel/sysctl.c ? In addition, is it necessary to transfer the architecture-related sysctl interface to arch/xxx/kernel/sysctl.c ? Thanks Xiaoming Ni