Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:05:15 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: sysctl additional functions/macros Message-ID: <6532.1199462715@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:00:42 PST." <477E582A.2060106@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <477E582A.2060106@elischer.org>, Julian Elischer writes: >Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> In message <477D931D.4000303@elischer.org>, Julian Elischer writes: >>> I would like to extend the current SYSCTL_INT() with >>> SYSCTL_INT_CLAMPED() or similar, where you also supply a >>> maximum acceptable value. (and maybe a clue as to what to say if it is >>> a bad value). >> >> I'm not sure I think it is a good idea. >> >> Next you'll want SYSCTL_INT_BITMAP(), SYSCTL_INT_POWERS_OF_PI() and >> so on. >> >> A much better idea would be to add a code argument to a version of >> SYSCTL_INT(), so that people could write something like: >> >> SYSCTL_INT(_debug, OID_AUTO, foobar, ORD_WR, &foobar, 0, >> "mumble desc mumble", >> { >> if (newval < 3 || newval > 70 || newval == 59) >> return (EINVAL); >> } >> ) >> > > >I actually considered that already.. It has the advantage of being >flexible.. but is more intrusive to implement. I think you'd have to >extend the sysctl_oid structure. No, you'd just expand the macro to a sysctl-function and declare the oid as such. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6532.1199462715>