From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Jul  3 10:36:20 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67AF737B401
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Thu,  3 Jul 2003 10:36:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rootlabs.com (root.org [67.118.192.226])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 90F8C43FCB
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Thu,  3 Jul 2003 10:36:17 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from nate@rootlabs.com)
Received: (qmail 92030 invoked by uid 1000); 3 Jul 2003 17:36:18 -0000
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:36:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org>
To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20030703133257.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20030703103522.S92002@root.org>
References: <XFMail.20030703133257.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
cc: current@freebsd.org
cc: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
Subject: Re: [acpi-jp 2382] Re: Updated ec-burst.diff patch
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 17:36:20 -0000

On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, John Baldwin wrote:
> On 03-Jul-2003 Nate Lawson wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> >> 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?
>
> Cause you can't set sysctl's from the loader, only tunables?  Are you
> going to duplicate the entire kernel environment from 'kenv' in
> sysctl?

Ah, I thought the two had been merged such that you could do that.

-Nate