[Pvfs2-developers] Re: [Pvfs2-cvs] commit by slang in pvfs2/src/kernel/linux-2.6: pvfs2-proc.c

[Sam Lang]

On Mar 24, 2008, at 2:42 PM, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
> cvs at parl.clemson.edu wrote on Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:44 -0500:
>> Update of /projects/cvsroot/pvfs2/src/kernel/linux-2.6
>> In directory parlweb1:/tmp/cvs-serv7976/src/kernel/linux-2.6
>>
>> Modified Files:
>>      Tag: pvfs-2-7-branch
>> 	pvfs2-proc.c
>> Log Message:
>> fix ctl values
> [..]
>> Index: pvfs2-proc.c
>> ===================================================================
>> RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pvfs2/src/kernel/linux-2.6/pvfs2-proc.c,v
>> diff -p -u -r1.8.2.3 -r1.8.2.4
>> --- pvfs2-proc.c	20 Mar 2008 03:29:14 -0000	1.8.2.3
>> +++ pvfs2-proc.c	21 Mar 2008 19:44:29 -0000	1.8.2.4
>> @@ -428,7 +428,7 @@ static ctl_table pvfs2_table[] = {
>>     },
>>     /* slot timeout */
>>     {
>> -        .ctl_name = UNNUMBERED_OR_VAL(2),
>> +        .ctl_name = 3,
>>         .procname = "slot-timeout-secs",
>>         .data = &slot_timeout_secs,
>>         .maxlen = sizeof(int),
>> @@ -440,7 +440,7 @@ static ctl_table pvfs2_table[] = {
>>     },
>>     /* time interval for client side performance counters */
>>     {
>> -        .ctl_name = 3,
>> +        .ctl_name = 4,
>>         .procname = "perf-time-interval-secs",
>>         .maxlen = sizeof(int),
>>         .mode = 0644,
>
> I see why you did this fix, but you should be aware of an issue
> on recent kernels, 2.6.24-rc6 or greater.  We're not supposed to use
> numbers for .ctl_name, but just CTL_UNNUMBERED.  Else you get
> non-fatal warnings (with backtrace) like this:
>
> sysctl table check failed: /pvfs2 .1 procname does not match binary  
> path procname
> sysctl table check failed: /pvfs2/debug .1.1 Sysctl already exists
>
> Murali sent a patch on 10 jan and I checked in fixes on 11 jan, but
> didn't push them back into the -2-7 branch.  The code you edit above
> is pretty far away from what is in HEAD, too, but maybe a similar
> sort of fix would be useful for recent-kernel people who still use
> that old branch.

Thanks Pete.  I don't see any reason not to bring the UNNUMBERED  
changes into the 2.7 branch.  Do you?
-sam

>
>
> 		-- Pete
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2417 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.beowulf-underground.org/pipermail/pvfs2-developers/attachments/20080324/01b008c4/smime.bin