From owner-freebsd-current  Sun Jan 10 01:41:14 1999
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA24398
          for freebsd-current-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 01:41:14 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.9])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA24391;
          Sun, 10 Jan 1999 01:41:09 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from bde@godzilla.zeta.org.au)
Received: (from bde@localhost)
	by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.8.7/8.8.7) id UAA03915;
	Sun, 10 Jan 1999 20:40:20 +1100
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 20:40:20 +1100
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199901100940.UAA03915@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: abial@nask.pl, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: sysctl's as an FS
Cc: msmith@FreeBSD.ORG
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

>I'm not sure if this idea has been already discussed... It occured to me
>that since we need some dynamic approach to the sysctl mechanism (which
>presently is static, constructed at compile time), especially when KLDs
>should be able to insert/delete whole subtrees in it, why not reimplement
>it in similar way to procfs?

It would just move the implementation difficulties.

I think it was a mistake to have a separate namespace and interfaces for
sysctls, but this is hard to change now.

Bruce

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message