Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 23:53:45 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no>, Darren Reed <darrenr@reed.wattle.id.au>, committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sysctl descriptions Message-ID: <50085.915954825@zippy.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 10 Jan 1999 08:29:49 %2B0100." <19167.915953389@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Sysctl descriptions is documentation stuff. No bit of code can read > it for any other purpose than presentation as ASCII for the operator > to read. > > There is NO reason whatsoever to load it with the kernel. Next thing > you will what to stick documentation for all ioctl(2) calls into the > kernel. > > KLD's could easily stick files into: > > /usr/share/doc/sysctl/desc/this/is/my/sysctl.txt 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. If I have to go remember to edit a file somewhere as well, I'm going to forget just as developers have been forgetting such extraneous details for years and the problem is acute enough that entire programming paradigms (tangle/weave) have been evolved in an effort to deal with the problem. I'd sooner have a larger kernel if it meant that my doc strings had a better chance of being actually *correct*. :) - Jordan 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?50085.915954825>