Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:09:09 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: "Constantine A. Murenin" <mureninc@gmail.com> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, Alexander Leidinger <netchild@freebsd.org>, cvs-src@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, "Constantine A. Murenin" <cnst@freebsd.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Wilko Bulte <wb@freebie.xs4all.nl> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc Makefile sensorsd.conf src/etc/defaults rc.conf src/etc/rc.d Makefile sensorsd src/lib/libc/gen sysctl.3 src/sbin/sysctl sysctl.8 sysctl.c src/share/man/man5 rc.conf.5 src/share/man/man9 Makefile sensor_attach.9 src/sys/conf f Message-ID: <200710161809.10755.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <f34ca13c0710161446l50deee86k3e6d6605e35a79d6@mail.gmail.com> References: <f34ca13c0710161446l50deee86k3e6d6605e35a79d6@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 16 October 2007 05:46:18 pm Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > On 16/10/2007, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Tuesday 16 October 2007 12:33:11 pm Alexander Leidinger wrote: > > > Constantine asked for review several times on -current. He got some > > > reviews several times for commits to perforce. He incorporated > > > suggestions from those reviews, or explained why it is like it is and > > > why he can not switch (with no replies with suggestions how to solve > > > the problems he sees with the suggestions). Now you come and ask why > > > nobody pointed out some flaws before (without telling us which > > > technical flaws you talk about). > > > > At least from my point of view this is not quite accurate as pretty much all > > my feedback to the p4 commits was ignored with basically "Well, I don't like > > doing it that way". Specifically, with regards to creating dynamic sysctl > > trees, Constantine feels that sysctl_add_oid(9) is a hack rather than > > recognizing that this is a feature of FreeBSD's sysctl system despite > > repeated e-mails on the subject. > > Dear John, > > I have specifically addressed this concern of yours just several weeks ago. > > Please see the following message, which you've never replied to: > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/p4-projects/2007-September/021121.html > > I've used the documented parts of the FreeBSD's sysctl interface to > preserve 100% userland compatibility with OpenBSD. FreeBSD already provides an interface for creating dynamic sysctl trees that is simpler than having to simulate a pseudo-tree via the .oid_handler routine. In some cases (such as kern.proc) FreeBSD still uses a function handler rather than giving each process its own sysctl node. However, in other cases (generally more recent ones, and ones not as large/performance impacting) such as dev.* or the recent proposal to give ifnet's their own nodes under 'net.if' or the like, sysctl_add_oid(9) is used. As to the process of walking sysctl trees being undocumented, it is simply missing a wrapper routine ala sysctlbyname(3) and a manpage. You could easily provide one and thus provide a facility for enumerating many different things than having several one-off oid_handler routines to enumerate subtrees. However, it is not some "backdoor" hack interface anymore than sysctlbyname(3) is. They are both equally hackish or non-hackish (depending on your point of view). > I cannot possibly > see why you would have a problem with such an approach other than for > the fact that OpenBSD is not a proprietary system with wealthy > sponsors. I think I'll let that speak for itself. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200710161809.10755.jhb>