From owner-freebsd-current Sun Jan 10 01:44:14 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA24763 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 01:44:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (castles333.castles.com [208.214.167.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA24757; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 01:44:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dingo.cdrom.com (8.9.1/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA04731; Sun, 10 Jan 1999 01:40:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Message-Id: <199901100940.BAA04731@dingo.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: Bruce Evans cc: abial@nask.pl, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, msmith@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sysctl's as an FS In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 10 Jan 1999 20:40:20 +1100." <199901100940.UAA03915@godzilla.zeta.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 01:40:25 -0800 From: Mike Smith 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. Which namespace would you have preferred? -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message