On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 16:31:28 -0600 (CST)
YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / _$B5HF#1QL@ [off-list ref] wrote:

In article [ref] (at Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:02:33 -0800), "David S. Miller" [off-list ref] says:

quoted

Another idea is to change do_proc_dointvec() to take a conversion function
pointer instead of this "conv" thing.  Maybe even proc_dointvec_minmax()
could be implemented in terms of do_proc_dointvec() with such a scheme.

This is essentially identical to what I thought.
Okay, how about this?

This looks very nice, thank you Yoshfuji.

I'm asking Linus what we should do here.  It's a big change to
make to fix this bug, and if he thinks so too we'll just use
your original patch which is a safer version of the fix for 2.6.0
purposes.  If that happens, we'll integrate this nicer version
for 2.6.1 or something like this.

Thank you again.