Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:41:53 +0000 (UTC) From: Csaba Henk <csaba-ml@creo.hu> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: Adding a hw.features[2] sysctl Message-ID: <slrnfomt3j.i6j.csaba-ml@beastie.creo.hu> References: <1200197787.67286.13.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> <20080113182457.GN929@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <a2b6592c0801131721w25afae5bg3dcf6a90c1a3d2b7@mail.gmail.com> <200801141254.20400.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <a2b6592c0801131838jcde3634le6087d2f784adcbc@mail.gmail.com> <478AE741.1000105@comcast.net> <a2b6592c0801140139v42bb6ab2s667ebceb9ba3ab16@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2008-01-14, Igor Mozolevsky <igor@hybrid-lab.co.uk> wrote: > On 14/01/2008, Nathan Lay <nslay@comcast.net> wrote: > >> cat'ing /dev/cpuinfo sounds reminiscent to Linux /proc. > > No it doesn't - it's a perfectly fine Unix way of doing things... The > purpose of /dev is to provide an interface to the devices on the > machine, (query-capable-)CPU is a device... Having /proc as an > interface to the kernel on the other hand... Hm, I just fail to see the how the ioctl interface is different from the sysctl interface in terms of semantic capabilites. AFAICS you can syntactically transform some hypothetic ioctl call on a /dev/ entry to a hypothethic sysctl invocation and vica versa. So for me it seems to be just a matter of preference and style. And you just _can't_ deny that defining a sysctl adheres more to FreeBSD's conventions than adding a fancy new /dev node just to be ioctl'd. Csaba
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?slrnfomt3j.i6j.csaba-ml>