Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 17:07:54 -0700 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu> Cc: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, dyson@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kernfs/procfs questions... Message-ID: <199806130007.RAA01561@dingo.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 12 Jun 1998 19:36:09 EDT." <Pine.BSF.3.96.980612192358.2140O-100000@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > It's not my place to enforce, but if it were I'd start removing any > > > sysctl's that weren't documented/used. As Mike pointed out in private > > > email, there are 434 sysctl nodes in our system, and 20 of them are > > > documented one way or the other. The rest are magic. > > > > > > I think of sysctl as a bunch of big global variable, or OPTIONS in the > > > kernel config file. If it isn't documented, it isn't needed. > > Could I make a suggestion? How about allowing the documentation on > sysctl to be outside the norm a little, so as to make it much easier for > folks adding new ones to make the doc? This eliminates the need to add > the troff/man formatting, which can bre a pain. Something like a file > in /usr/share/doc (maybe /usr/share/doc/sysctl.list) where every new > knob needs to get a short def, of a form that encourages (at least) a > minimum in completeness? This would allow huge howls if a new sysctl > was implemented without a doc entry. The man page on sysctl could refer > to that file, and everyone wouldn't have to stumble over troff. Actually, you're supposed to supply at least a description of the sysctl in the SYSCTL_* macro itself. > If you don't want the doc in a separate file, it _could_ go in the man > page. I know troff well enough to do that, but I'd have to be a short > term pest while getting the info. Won't do that without your agreement > that it's necessary. I'd really rather have it in a separate file, so > documenting new ones could have a firm requirement of documentation > (because there'd be no excuse not to do that). > > I think, personally, the fs route is overkill, myself, but the doc angle > is the real point, isn't it? It's one of them, yes. -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199806130007.RAA01561>