From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jan  4 02:33:40 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC60F16A41A
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Fri,  4 Jan 2008 02:33:40 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org)
Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD93113C459
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Fri,  4 Jan 2008 02:33:40 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org)
Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192)
	id 9EEDA1A4D82; Thu,  3 Jan 2008 18:31:14 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 18:31:14 -0800
From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>
To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
Message-ID: <20080104023114.GG76698@elvis.mu.org>
References: <477D931D.4000303@elischer.org>
	<20080104021905.GE76698@elvis.mu.org>
	<477D9948.3050508@elischer.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <477D9948.3050508@elischer.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Cc: arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: RFC: sysctl additional functions/macros
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 02:33:40 -0000

* Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> [080103 18:23] wrote:
> Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >Yes, but EINVAL please.
> >
> >Another idea would be a simplified SYSCTL_INT_PROC
> >that allowed one to define a function like so:
> >
> >int
> >sysctl_handle_int_proc(void *handle, int *newval, int *max, int *min)
> >{
> >
> >
> >}
> >
> >If this function returned '0' then 'newval' would be accepted.
> >Otherwise the function should return an error, most likely EINVAL.
> >
> >The point being that a lot of these maximums may take a calculation
> >and we should make it as easy as possible to do this calculation
> >and provide the function for doing so.
> 
> yes I was thinking about that..
> something that allowed one to supply a simple comparison snippet.
> 
> the limit is in the fields that are stored in the sysctl_oid
> structure.

Whichever you decide, I think either would be a step forward.

-Alfred