Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:28:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Updated ec-burst.diff patch Message-ID: <20030703102627.D92002@root.org> In-Reply-To: <20030703.052315.32736625.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20030701103125.R87367@root.org> <3F021133.3040306@kasimir.com> <20030701164231.M88547@root.org> <20030703.052315.32736625.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <20030701164231.M88547@root.org> > Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> writes: > : On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Florian Smeets wrote: > : > I set hw.acpi.ec.burst_mode=0 in loader.conf but when i was trying to > : > chek if it was set to 0 with sysctl hw.acpi.ec.burst_mode i got : > : > > : > flo@lappi [~] 15 #sysctl hw.acpi.ec.burst_mode > : > sysctl: unknown oid 'hw.acpi.ec.burst_mode' > : > : It's a tunable, not a sysctl. So you can only set it in loader.conf. Are > : there any messages when you boot with that in your loader.conf? Would you > : please post a separate dmesg for that case? > > I personally think that all tunable should be read-only (or rw if > possible) sysctls... I'm still not sure why we have both mechanisms. Perhaps a useful approach would be to sweep the tree for tunables and change them to sysctls with appropriate permissions (read-only if in doubt). Then remove the tunable mechanism. Care to put together a patch? -Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030703102627.D92002>