Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 15:59:35 -0800 (PST) From: Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com> To: abial@webgiro.com (Andrzej Bialecki) Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Modules and sysctl tree Message-ID: <199912092359.PAA76217@bubba.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.20.9912091800480.72117-100000@mx.webgiro.com> from Andrzej Bialecki at "Dec 9, 1999 06:06:41 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andrzej Bialecki writes: > I'd like to know whether we reached some conclusions concerning the naming > of sysctl variables created (or related to) KLDs. I know that Linux > emulator creates "compat.linux". I don't know if any other module creates > sysctls (well, except my SPY module.. :-). > > So, what is the current thinking? Should we use > > modules.my_module.whatever, or > > kld.my_kld.whatever, or > > just sprinkle the new sysctls randomly over the tree, according to their > functions, e.g. > > kern.my_module_kern_hook > net.inet.my_module_inet_hook > ... I think the latter. In 'theory' there should be no discernable difference between functionality from a KLD vs. the same functionality compiled directly into the kernel. KLD's are just a linking mechanism, and shouldn't have any more significance than that from a usability perspective. -Archie ___________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * http://www.whistle.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199912092359.PAA76217>