Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 12:03:45 +0100 From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> To: Mark Johnston <markjdb@gmail.com> Cc: mdf@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: coretemp(4)/amdtemp(4) and sysctl nodes Message-ID: <86ipz4plv2.fsf@ds4.des.no> In-Reply-To: <20101208045823.GB35615@mark-desktop-bsd.mark-home> (Mark Johnston's message of "Tue, 7 Dec 2010 23:58:23 -0500") References: <AANLkTikNJ29AcE1fBXqq_atUU8PQBz9VUos0V%2BwBFQJs@mail.gmail.com> <86r5dsq5oc.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20101208045823.GB35615@mark-desktop-bsd.mark-home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mark Johnston <markjdb@gmail.com> writes: > Aren't the dev.cpu.X and the coretemp sysctls matched up by the use of > > SYSCTL_CHILDREN(device_get_sysctl_tree(pdev)) > > in coretemp's sysctl definition? What does the sysctl context have to do > with identifying the parent oid? They're intended to go hand in hand. I would have preferred that contexts were actually tied to subtrees, but I had to play the ball I was given. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86ipz4plv2.fsf>