From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 1 14:11:24 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4810E10656C0; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 14:11:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F36988FC18; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 14:11:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from odyssey.starpoint.kiev.ua (alpha-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.101]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id RAA13070; Fri, 01 Oct 2010 17:11:20 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <4CA5EC08.8070502@freebsd.org> Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 17:11:20 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100920 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mdf@freebsd.org References: <201010010934.o919YfCB097349@svn.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r213322 - head/sys/kern X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 14:11:24 -0000 mdf@FreeBSD.org wrote: > I thought CTLFLAG_TUN was only used to provide a more useful error > message when writing to a read-only sysctl? I think the CTLFLAG_TUN > should not be here for a RW sysctl. Yes, that's the only use for CTLFLAG_TUN _now_. Perhaps in the future there could be other uses, such as a flag to sysctl to list names which are also tunables. Or some other creative use. sysctl(9) says: CTLFLAG_TUN Also declare a system tunable with the same name to ini‐ tialize this variable. While the above is not true or very ambiguous at the very least, I still don't see any reason not to use the flag in this case. -- Andriy Gapon