Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 21:49:52 -0400 (EDT) From: "Matthew N. Dodd" <winter@jurai.net> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Sergey Uvarov <uvarovsl@mail.pnpi.spb.ru>, Dirk GOUDERS <gouders@et.bocholt.fh-ge.de> Subject: Re: preferable way to control kernel module Message-ID: <20050811214919.B59089@sasami.jurai.net> In-Reply-To: <42FBC017.6050000@elischer.org> References: <200508111813.j7BIDeFP055360@sora.hank.home> <42FBC017.6050000@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Julian Elischer wrote: > In the past, I've used a sysctl to communicate out the syscall number. > > you only need to do the syscall once, > and it confirms to the program that the syscall is correctly installed. Why not just use a sysctl period? Think of it as "syscall by name". -- 10 40 80 C0 00 FF FF FF FF C0 00 00 00 00 10 AA AA 03 00 00 00 08 00
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050811214919.B59089>