Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> writes:
quoted text
>
> Hi Christian, Hi Dave,
>
> I have indeed been looking into this of late. Assuming that you use of
> CTL_UNNUMBERED is correct, this patch looks fine to me.  Acked.
>
> I was planning to do the same and also switch over all the other entries
> over to use CTL_UNNUMBERED, as its hard to imagine that anyone is using
> the sys_sysctl interface to IPVS.
>
> As for the commented out entries. They are supposed to be exposed by
> some other means - I believe the thinking was to comply with the don't
> expose stuff in proc any more idea. Where is the best place to expose
> this kind of stuff?
>
> Lastly, as Dave mentions, I'm travelling this week, so please
> excuse any slowness.


Looking at this patch it looks sane enough. Either removing ctl_name
or explicitly using CTL_UNNUMBERED is fine.  It may be wise to leave
the binary entries in ip_vs.h and sysctl_check.c as documentation,
but even there it doesn't much matter since we don't plan on adding more.

Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html