Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I found why first version should be rejected, and, no, it is not
> documentation updates. Here is version 2:
I care about the documentation because it is the best thing
we have for enforcing sane sysctl table usage.
After looking at the problem. Whi
I found why first version should be rejected, and, no, it is not
documentation updates. Here is version 2:
[PATCH 2/2] sysctl: remove CTL_UNNUMBERED
CTL_UNNUMBERED is unneeded, because it expands to
.ctl_name = 0
The same effect can be achieved by skipping .ctl_name initialization
2 matches
Mail list logo
