From owner-freebsd-current Fri Dec 10 0:49: 9 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mimer.webgiro.com (mimer.webgiro.com [212.209.29.5]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF16C15244 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 00:48:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from abial@webgiro.com) Received: by mimer.webgiro.com (Postfix, from userid 66) id 671A52DC07; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 09:49:44 +0100 (CET) Received: by mx.webgiro.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id EF13C7811; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 09:48:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.webgiro.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB93010E10; Fri, 10 Dec 1999 09:48:13 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 09:48:12 +0100 (CET) From: Andrzej Bialecki To: Archie Cobbs Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Modules and sysctl tree In-Reply-To: <199912092359.PAA76217@bubba.whistle.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Archie Cobbs wrote: > 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. Yes, assuming that the same functionality CAN be compiled in statically. IMHO the kernel modularity is a laudable goal, and if it works well, there are only few cases when you would want to make a monolithic kernel. IMHO, of course :-) > KLD's are just a linking mechanism, and shouldn't have any more > significance than that from a usability perspective. Hah. If it were so simple... Let's take the example of a module foo, which provides unique features of bar and baz. They are unrelated to any already existing category. Where they should be hooked up? kernel? machdep? Then these categories will become a messy, amorphic trashcans. Also, it will be difficult to see which sysctls will disappear when the module is unloaded. Also, if we say that modules should register their sysctls in easily discernible place in the tree, we set up a good example for third party vendors, who otherwise will sprinkle their own sysctls all over the tree... You can probably see from the above what is my preference.. ;-) More or less, my question is: how the sysctl tree will look like when _most_ of the kernel will be in modules? Andrzej Bialecki // WebGiro AB, Sweden (http://www.webgiro.com) // ------------------------------------------------------------------- // ------ FreeBSD: The Power to Serve. http://www.freebsd.org -------- // --- Small & Embedded FreeBSD: http://www.freebsd.org/~picobsd/ ---- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message