Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 11:10:41 +0600 (NS) From: "Nickolay N. Dudorov" <nnd@ctserv.itfs.nsk.su> To: sthaug@nethelp.no Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sysctl descriptions Message-ID: <199901110510.LAA17557@ctserv.itfs.nsk.su> In-Reply-To: <199901101200.XAA13355@godzilla.zeta.org.au> <22387.915970310@verdi.nethelp.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <22387.915970310@verdi.nethelp.no> you wrote: >> >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! >> >> Most sysctl names already give a useful short description. > I have to at least partly disagree here. Some sysctl names are descriptive, > not all are. I'd argue that many of them aren't *sufficiently* descriptive, > and a short textual description would be helpful. > You and I may know what net.inet.tcp.log_in_vain means - but I think it's > not at all obvious unless you look at the source. I definitely didn't know > what net.inet.ip.fastforwarding was until I looked at the source. And what can be *short* descriptions for *this* two examples such that I may not look at the sources or man pages ? And second question - what is the max length of the sysctl name ? If it is at least 80 chars then the name MUST be self-descriptive (sp. ?). N.Dudorov 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?199901110510.LAA17557>