From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Jan 18 1:11:19 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mass.osd.bsdi.com (unknown [216.240.45.41]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A6C937B402 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:11:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from mass.osd.bsdi.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mass.osd.bsdi.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f0I9PGj01700; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:25:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from msmith@mass.osd.bsdi.com) Message-Id: <200101180925.f0I9PGj01700@mass.osd.bsdi.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: Tony Finch Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: dynamic vs static sysctls? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 18 Jan 2001 06:26:44 GMT." <20010118062644.D30538@hand.dotat.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:25:16 -0800 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > 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. Because there's no linkage between the disk device and the filesystem. An ioctl on the mountpoint might make (a little) more sense. -- ... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his rivals and unfortunately opponents also. But not because people want to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force people to take different points of view. [Dr. Fritz Todt] V I C T O R Y N O T V E N G E A N C E To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message