Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 23:20:45 +0100 (MET) From: Mattias.Gronlund@sa.erisoft.se (Mattias Gronlund) To: phk@critter.tfs.com (Poul-Henning Kamp) Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sysctl interface Message-ID: <9512282220.AA05120@sws021.sa.erisoft.se> In-Reply-To: <16605.820180543@critter.tfs.com> from "Poul-Henning Kamp" at Dec 28, 95 08:55:43 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Well, essential or not, we can argue about. hw.devconf is what I > consider "closed territory" and therefore these functions shouldn't > try to mess with it. There exists special programs which are good > at handling that area. These functions really of any value only for > the variables that sysctl(8) handles. Good point, when I think about it i realize what you mean, why should a user that run "sysctl -a" have to see every little variable that the kernel exports with the sysctl call, in cases like this there certainly would be better to have a dedicated tool to parse the data. > The entire sysctl area is still being reconsidered and rearchitected > quite a bit, and this particular interface should >>>NOT<<< be relied > on for the future. But if I whant to create an interface for iostat to retrive data from the disk drivers to generate an extended disk statistic, should I wait untill the interface is "reconsidered and rearchitected" or will it be a minor thing to convert from the current interface to the uppcoming interface? /Mattias
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9512282220.AA05120>