lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateThu, 6 Jan 2000 21:50:54 -0500 (EST)
FromAlexander Viro <>
SubjectRe: /proc guidelines and sysctl

On 6 Jan 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> >And finally, what's up with sysctl?  Are driver writers recommended to use
> >that over extending /proc or is it deprecated?  Again guide lines would be
> >nice.
> 
> sysctl is deprecated.  It's useful in one way only: it has some nice
> functions that can be used to add a block of /proc names.  However, it
> has other downsides (allocating silly numbers etc - there should be no
> need for that, considering that the /proc namespace is alreayd a
> perfectly good namespace). 

Oh, please! All we need is sysctlbyname(2) - _not_ a problem, and closes
all problems with numbers. And it should not work through mounted procfs -
we can traverse the tree doing comparisons by name just fine. The fact
that sysctl(8) needs mounted procfs is an artificial misfeature, nothing
more.

What _is_ bogus is the idea of sysctl() doing more than read/write access
to constant-sized variables. Or procfs entries doing ioctl(), for that
matter - just look at /proc/mtrr, for one specimen.

sysctl() is a perfectly reasonable subset of pseudofs-type stuff, with
well-defined semantics (unlike the rest ;-/). The rest is pretty much a
maze of twisted little formats, none alike. IMO dissolving the thing is
_not_ a good idea. You have the final word, indeed, but I think that
sysctlbyname() may remove most of the problems.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [from the cache]
©2003-2008