From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Jul  3 10:59:19 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 649CF37B401; Thu,  3 Jul 2003 10:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net (rwcrmhc11.comcast.net [204.127.198.35])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id E0C484400B; Thu,  3 Jul 2003 10:59:18 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from julian@elischer.org)
Received: from interjet.elischer.org ([12.233.125.100])
          by attbi.com (rwcrmhc11) with ESMTP
          id <20030703175913013001jaole>; Thu, 3 Jul 2003 17:59:13 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1])
	by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA78346;
	Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:59:08 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:59:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
To: Michael Smith <msmith@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <AEBF16C0-AD7E-11D7-AD8C-000393DA4D30@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0307031055070.78043-100000@InterJet.elischer.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 2381] 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 17:59:19 -0000



On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Michael Smith wrote:

> 
[...]
> 
> No.
> 
> The two are different things, although arguably there should be more 
> integration.
> 
> The tunable mechanism exists to allow parameters to be set before the 
> kernel starts.
> Things that are set with tunables tend to be things that used to be 
> statically compiled
> into the kernel; they're not adjustable once the kernel's up and 
> running.
> 
> It makes sense to export the values set by tunables into the sysctl 
> MIB, but by their
> very nature they're not suitable for conversion to sysctls.
> 
>   = Mike

So is what you are saying...

"tuneables should be converted at boot to read-only sysctls?"

I can imagine some things that could be changed again once running,
so maybe it would not be a cast in iron thing...