From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Jan 19 0:20:53 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (fw2.aub.dk [195.24.1.195]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 920CE37B401; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:20:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from critter (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f0J8KMl76034; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:20:22 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Matt Dillon Cc: Mike Smith , Tony Finch , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: dynamic vs static sysctls? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:13:14 PST." <200101190013.f0J0DEb88324@earth.backplane.com> Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:20:22 +0100 Message-ID: <76032.979892422@critter> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <200101190013.f0J0DEb88324@earth.backplane.com>, Matt Dillon writes: >:> 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. An ioctl would end up on the device, which should know nothing about filesystems. If fcntl was extensible like ioctl, opening the rootdir of the filesystem and doing an fcntl would be the right way. Lacking that, a sysctl directly into the filesystem sounds like a pretty good solution to me. -- 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. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message