From owner-freebsd-current Thu Dec 9 15:59:40 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from bubba.whistle.com (bubba.whistle.com [207.76.205.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C1F715475 for ; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 15:59:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from archie@whistle.com) Received: (from archie@localhost) by bubba.whistle.com (8.9.2/8.9.2) id PAA76217; Thu, 9 Dec 1999 15:59:35 -0800 (PST) From: Archie Cobbs Message-Id: <199912092359.PAA76217@bubba.whistle.com> Subject: Re: Modules and sysctl tree In-Reply-To: from Andrzej Bialecki at "Dec 9, 1999 06:06:41 pm" To: abial@webgiro.com (Andrzej Bialecki) Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 15:59:35 -0800 (PST) Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Andrzej Bialecki writes: > I'd like to know whether we reached some conclusions concerning the naming > of sysctl variables created (or related to) KLDs. I know that Linux > emulator creates "compat.linux". I don't know if any other module creates > sysctls (well, except my SPY module.. :-). > > So, what is the current thinking? Should we use > > modules.my_module.whatever, or > > kld.my_kld.whatever, or > > just sprinkle the new sysctls randomly over the tree, according to their > functions, e.g. > > kern.my_module_kern_hook > net.inet.my_module_inet_hook > ... I think the latter. In 'theory' there should be no discernable difference between functionality from a KLD vs. the same functionality compiled directly into the kernel. KLD's are just a linking mechanism, and shouldn't have any more significance than that from a usability perspective. -Archie ___________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * http://www.whistle.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message