Messages in this thread | | | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sysctl: Undeprecate sys_sysctl (take 2) | Date | Fri, 10 Nov 2006 00:28:54 -0700 |
| |
Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> writes:
> On Wednesday 08 November 2006 20:58, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> The basic issue is that despite have been ``deprecated'' and >> warned about as a very bad thing in the man pages since it's >> inception there are a few real users of sys_sysctl. > > But they only seem to use a small number of actually used with > sysctl(2) sysctls. > I still think just maintaining a conversion table for > those is the right thing to do.
I don't know. Every distinct user of the binary sysctl interface used a different entry. So the fact that there are a small number of programs and thus a small number of sysctls used I agree with. I do not agree with the conclusion that we can predict the set of binary sysctl that are in use. We do not get good enough feedback from the user community.
I don't have a problem with the principle of a conversion table if it meant that we would never add any additional binary sysctls.
> The important part really is to get rid of the crufty > old infrastructure internally.
There is certainly some cleanup we could do there. For absolutely simple values sysctl isn't too bad. But generated values are horrible.
Certainly some of the parts are crufty and harder to use then they should be. The /proc side actually seems worse than the binary side.
That said I have some plans on attacking sysctl in a very practical sense, because it is required to implement multiple namespaces.
Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |