Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 09:24:15 +0100 From: sthaug@nethelp.no To: jkh@zippy.cdrom.com Cc: phk@critter.freebsd.dk, des@flood.ping.uio.no, darrenr@reed.wattle.id.au, committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sysctl descriptions Message-ID: <20940.915956655@verdi.nethelp.no> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 09 Jan 1999 23:53:45 -0800" References: <50085.915954825@zippy.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Actually, there is a legitimate syncronization issue to be dealt with > here. If I have a sysctl implemented in one area of the code with a > doc string that describes it, I'm going to be more inclined to stick > it in the macro definition or something itself so that I have doc > string and associated sysctl code together. Precisely. I think that having a reasonably up to date *short* description of each sysctl would be extremely useful. By short I mean 80 characters or less. Yes, I realize that many of the sysctls really need longer descriptions - but short descriptions are still useful! On a fairly current system here there are 319 sysctls. If each of them had an 80 character description, it would increase kernel size by 25520 bytes. I'm very willing to pay that price, especially if I could decide at kernel compile time whether to include the descriptions or not. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20940.915956655>