Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 10:34:26 +1030 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> Cc: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, Eivind Eklund <perhaps@yes.no>, dyson@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: VM system info Message-ID: <199712090004.KAA02916@word.smith.net.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 08 Dec 1997 09:37:19 BST." <19971208093719.50393@follo.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Mon, Dec 08, 1997 at 05:36:08PM +1030, Mike Smith wrote: > > > 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). > > > > Would you buy it in /usr/share/misc/sysctl_nodes? I was thinking about > > that when I saved John's message... > > If extracted from the kernel source, I'd say it was OK. Extracting from kernel source (at build time) is quite obviously pointless. It's also not useful for parts of the tree that are dynamically generated (although sysctl isn't actually too good at walking those parts of the tree anyway). > However, if > this is a file that developers are supposed to to keep up to date > manually, I'm much more sceptical. Keeping documentation outside the > source up to date has a tendency to be forgotten/ignored. This is the only way to do it; maintaining a document which describes a superset of nodes. Even if it's incomplete (like scsi_modes) it would be Better than Nothing. mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199712090004.KAA02916>