lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: CTL_UNNUMBERED (Re: [PATCH] 9p: Don't use binary sysctl numbers.)
It doesn't really matter (for me) whether it is sysctl or sysfs
interface. The sysctl approach seemed easier to implement. If the
consensus is to use sysfs, I'll send a patch (for 2.6.24).

Sorry for the incorrect implementation, I guess I stole the code from
unappropriate place :)

Thanks,
Lucho

On 7/23/07, Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/21/07, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
> > Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > >
> > > That's separate patch but CTL_UNNUMBERED must die, because it's totally
> > > unneeded. If you don't want sysctl(2) interface just SKIP ->ctl_name
> > > initialization and save one line for something useful.
> >
> > As for the 9p code it doesn't seem to need or want a real binary
> > interface. The 9p debug code picking of a semi-random number and not
> > patching it into sysctl.h like it should for a binary interface is
> > an implementation bug, and a maintenance problem.
> >
>
> Now that -rc1 is out, lets talk a bit more about this. Lucho can you
> provide some level of justification of why you went for a sysctl
> interface versus something directly accessible within the file system
> -- that would seem more on-par with the 9p philosophy.
>
> Perhaps its time for a general cleanup of the debug_level stuff -- it
> was always ugly to have it as a global, but there was just no clear
> way to have the session structure available everywhere we use it.
>
> -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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-07-23 20:09    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans