Date: Wed, 9 May 2012 17:27:51 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> To: Aleksandr Rybalko <ray@ddteam.net> Cc: "hackers@FreeBSD.org" <hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Thoughts about kenv emulating sysctl Message-ID: <CAGH67wT%2BuMQZt=mNfvfBcqG5wpEoQd-AMCTv3HB-xMkN%2BUc=vA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120510010258.2653aeea.ray@ddteam.net> References: <D213F695-E85A-407F-92F1-469FD00A0963@gmail.com> <20120510010258.2653aeea.ray@ddteam.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Aleksandr! On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Aleksandr Rybalko <ray@ddteam.net> wrote: > On Wed, 9 May 2012 09:05:47 -0700 > Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> wrote: ... > Hi Garret, > > I use it for embedded, kenv is good transport shared by loader, kernel > and userland (since there is no RW storages). Indeed. > IMO, kenv != sysctl, so we not need to match sysctl. But backwards > 'compatibility' is good reason to select second way. Which is what I figured; I favored the latter course at first and developed my patch based on that mindset, because I know people hate it when backwards compatibility is broken :) (in all fairness I'm generally one of them). Thanks! -Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGH67wT%2BuMQZt=mNfvfBcqG5wpEoQd-AMCTv3HB-xMkN%2BUc=vA>