![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Eric W. Biederman wrote: > 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. > Okay, my opinion now... I think we should change the sysctl system so most sysctls simply aren't accessible through the binary interface. The rest of them should be documented in one place, preferrably machine-readable. However, I think having the binary sysctls available as a limited last resort is better than adding ad hoc system calls all over the place, like sys_mips. -hpa - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-11-11 06:31 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||