From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Jan 17 23: 6:42 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69AB937B402; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 23:06:26 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id f0I76MJ18369; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 23:06:22 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 23:06:22 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Tony Finch Cc: Mike Smith , Kirk McKusick , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: dynamic vs static sysctls? Message-ID: <20010117230622.K7240@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <200101152345.PAA22257@beastie.mckusick.com> <200101160727.f0G7Rss00920@mass.osd.bsdi.com> <20010118062644.D30538@hand.dotat.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010118062644.D30538@hand.dotat.at>; from dot@dotat.at on Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 06:26:44AM +0000 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Tony Finch [010117 22:27] wrote: > Mike Smith wrote: > > > >> In my work on a background version of fsck, I have used sysctl to > >> allow me to pass information into the kernel that I want to have > >> updated in the filesystem. > > > >I'm not convinced that sysctl is the "right" way to go about doing this, > >really. But I can't think of a better one. 8) > > Why not an ioctl on the disk device? You could arrange to pass in an > array of free blocks to reduce the number of syscalls. It's not a disk action, it's an FS action, an fsctl call might be handy, or a completely static sysctl, but not a disk device ioctl. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message