Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 00:02:02 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>, Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG>, Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: dynamic vs static sysctls? Message-ID: <20010118000202.L7240@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <200101180739.AAA00872@usr08.primenet.com>; from tlambert@primenet.com on Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 07:39:11AM %2B0000 References: <20010117230622.K7240@fw.wintelcom.net> <200101180739.AAA00872@usr08.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> [010117 23:39] wrote: > > > >> In my work on a background version of fsck, I have used sysctl to > > > >> allow me to pass information into the kernel that I want to have > > > >> updated in the filesystem. > > > > > > > >I'm not convinced that sysctl is the "right" way to go about doing this, > > > >really. But I can't think of a better one. 8) > > > > > > Why not an ioctl on the disk device? You could arrange to pass in an > > > array of free blocks to reduce the number of syscalls. > > > > It's not a disk action, it's an FS action, an fsctl call might be handy, > > or a completely static sysctl, but not a disk device ioctl. > > FWIW, this really depends on whose job you think it is to > keep track of bad blocks and virtually "fix" them. We're talking about block changes that relate in in-core filesystem data, not just bad-block remapping. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010118000202.L7240>