Date: Sat, 09 Jan 1999 23:38:07 -0800 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no>, Darren Reed <darrenr@reed.wattle.id.au>, committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sysctl descriptions Message-ID: <199901100738.XAA03998@dingo.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 10 Jan 1999 08:29:49 %2B0100." <19167.915953389@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> There is NO reason whatsoever to load it with the kernel. Next thing > you will what to stick documentation for all ioctl(2) calls into the > kernel. > > KLD's could easily stick files into: > > /usr/share/doc/sysctl/desc/this/is/my/sysctl.txt > > with descriptions. No, they can't. There's also no guarantee that the KLD module file will be readable at run time. Please start thinking "dynamic kernel appears from nowhere". There is no guarantee that you can do anything related to the kernel without going to or through the kernel for it. Live with it. > Yes, I agree that sysctls should be better documented, No, I don't > agree that there is any reason for wasting RAM on it. If you don't want the descriptions, don't build them into your kernel. Meantime, please feel free to work out a compromise solution whereby descriptions can come from more than one source. And then a better one where you can guarantee that the two sources will always stay in sync. As it is, sysctl-as-it-is' life it limited. Don't get too emotional about another bandaid on its creaking frame. -- \\ 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 cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199901100738.XAA03998>