Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 08:28:15 +1100 (EST) From: Andrew Reilly <reilly@ZETA.ORG.AU> To: toor@dyson.iquest.net Cc: perhaps@yes.no, dyson@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: VM system info Message-ID: <199712082128.IAA10768@gurney.reilly.home> In-Reply-To: <199712080151.UAA00245@dyson.iquest.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 7 Dec, John S. Dyson wrote: > Eivind Eklund said: >> >> I want this info in the kernel. At the very least, I want >> documentation as a part of the SYSCTL_*() macro parameters, unused but >> available as a (mandatory) part of the source - better would be as a >> part of the kernel that can be compiled away by setting a kernel >> option (e.g. NO_SYSCTL_DOCS). >> > The biggest problem with that is the size of the "documentation." I > agree that it would be a good idea to document everything. Internally > would be nice (I guess), because it would tend to stay better in sync. > Some kind of literate programming scheme would be interesting also. I've been thinking about this for a while, but haven't arrived at the "perfect" solution yet. Literate programming is definitely good: possibly the only solution to this sort of problem. The devil is in the details, of course. How about a kern-doc compiler that filters through the kernel source as part of the build process, and compiles all of the sysctl doco into an HTML tree, with the appropriate links to man pages. This could just be put somewhere in the file system, or, for extra points, compiled into the kernel itself as an MFS image that could be accessed with the appropriate tweaks to mount_mfs. (Or something much simpler, since you only read read-only, world-access semantics.) -- Andrew "The steady state of disks is full." -- Ken Thompson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199712082128.IAA10768>