Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 17:32:17 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: dyson@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams), mike@smith.net.au, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kernfs/procfs questions... Message-ID: <199806042332.RAA05525@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199806042243.RAA00404@dyson.iquest.net> References: <199806042233.QAA04941@mt.sri.com> <199806042243.RAA00404@dyson.iquest.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > You aren't clear *which* sysctl should go away. If you mean sysctl(8), I > > > hope you will be removing gdb, nm, hexdump, etc. as well, as these are > > > all user-unfriendly tools designed for studying and/or adjusting the > > > state of complex, undocumented things. > > > > But users aren't expected to use gdb/nm/hexdump, but sysctl is. Many of > > these parameters *should* be tweaked to get better performance, avoid > > errors, etc... > > > Only some of them, if any. Again I say, if they're not meant to be touched, then don't expose them. It's stupid to expose something that is useless for 99.9% of the population. It's not my place to enforce, but if it were I'd start removing any sysctl's that weren't documented/used. As Mike pointed out in private email, there are 434 sysctl nodes in our system, and 20 of them are documented one way or the other. The rest are magic. I think of sysctl as a bunch of big global variable, or OPTIONS in the kernel config file. If it isn't documented, it isn't needed. Do I have permission to start removing sysctl's that aren't documented/used? Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199806042332.RAA05525>