Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 08 Apr 2009 16:50:49 +0800 | From | Shen Feng <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] IPv4/IPv6: update sysctl files |
| |
on 04/08/2009 03:18 PM, David Miller wrote: > From: Shen Feng <shen@cn.fujitsu.com> > Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 11:28:21 +0800 > >> >> on 04/08/2009 10:47 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote: >>> On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 02:39 +0000, Shen Feng wrote: >>>> Now the following sysctl files in /proc/sys/net/ipv4 are used by >>>> both IPv4 and IPv6. >>>> tcp_mem tcp_rmem tcp_wmem >>>> udp_mem udp_rmem_min udp_wmem_min >>>> Putting them in /proc/sys/net/ipv4 is not a good choice. >>> [...] >>> >>> But this is part of the ABI to userland. You cannot remove sysctl files >>> without long advance notice documented in feature-removal-schedule.txt >>> (if at all). >>> >>> If it is possible to add the paths >>> /proc/sys/net/{tcp,udp} while retaining aliases under /proc/sys/net/ipv4 >>> then that might be a workable solution. >> Thanks. That's a good solution. >> >> But I'm still confused. >> Why not create another tcp_mem in /proc/sys/net/ipv6? > > People just need to understand that ipv4 is always going to be > there and that's where all the tcp controls are. > > I really am not going to entertain changes that try to move generic > inet sysctl things out of the ipv4 directory. There is really no > point at all. >
/proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_mem is a inet sysctl, but it also controls the tcp v6. So it's also a inet6 sysctl. Is it intentional? This may confuse users. We may have a /proc/sys/net/ipv6/tcp6_mem.
> >
| |