From owner-freebsd-arch  Thu Jan 18 16:13:32 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from earth.backplane.com (placeholder-dcat-1076843399.broadbandoffice.net [64.47.83.135])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id C006637B401; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:13:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from dillon@localhost)
	by earth.backplane.com (8.11.1/8.9.3) id f0J0DEb88324;
	Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:13:14 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from dillon)
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:13:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>
Message-Id: <200101190013.f0J0DEb88324@earth.backplane.com>
To: Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG>
Cc: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: dynamic vs static sysctls? 
References:  <200101180925.f0I9PGj01700@mass.osd.bsdi.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

:> 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.

    The sysctl scares me... it's a massively unportable idea.  I'd much
    prefer running an ioctl through the filesystem.

						-Matt


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message