"H. Peter Anvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Eric W. Biederman wrote: >>>> >>> With "architectural" I mean "guaranteed to be stable" (as opposed to >>> "incidental"). Sorry for the confusion. >> >> Ok. Then largely we are in agreement. To implement that the rule is simple. >> If it isn't CTL_UNNUMBERED and the number is in Linus's tree, it is >> our responsibility to never change the meaning of that number. >> >> If a new sysctl entry is introduced it should be CTL_UNNUMBERED until >> it reaches Linus's tree to avoid conflicts. >> >> There is simply no point in having any kind of support for numbers >> whose meanings can change. >> >> Which is why I removed the few cases of binary number duplication I >> found. >> > > Agreed. *Furthermore*, if the number isn't in <linux/sysctl.h> it shouldn't > exist anywhere else, either.
That would be a good habit. Feel free to send the patches to ensure that is so. I'm a practical fix it when it is in my way kind of guy ;) Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
