Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 20:57:21 +0000 From: Ian Dowse <iedowse@maths.tcd.ie> To: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: dynamic vs static sysctls? Message-ID: <200101192057.aa79706@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:50:24 PST." <200101190850.f0J8oO891717@earth.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200101190850.f0J8oO891717@earth.backplane.com>, Matt Dillon writes: >:Lacking that, a sysctl directly into the filesystem sounds like a >:pretty good solution to me. > fcntl would work... after all, the POSIX locking functions already do > copyin/copyout using fcntl. It should give Kirk everything he needs. > It would certainly be better then sysctl. > There's also mount(2). NFS export lists are passed to the filesystem via a special mount call this way. It's hardly an interface designed to be extensible, but it does go straight to the filesystem from a syscall. Ian To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi? <200101192057.aa79706>