Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 30 Nov 2000 20:35:11 +0100 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.2.18pre24 |
| |
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 11:26:43AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > Right. But the problem here was a new, unused sysctl-by-number, conflicted > with an old-but-not-integrated sysctl-by-number that is used. :) The only
Who is using it? Not even the raid developers cared to take the sysctl-by-number consistent between 2.4.0-test12-pre2 and 2.2.x raid 0.90 so nobody should be using it in first place.
Furthmore since the number 4 is the official one for raid/md, DEV_MAC_HID=3 isn't really colliding with the raid sysctl, but DEV_MAC_HID=3 is still wrong because is it should be =5 to be consistent with 2.4.x...
2.2.x RAID 0.90:
enum { DEV_CDROM=1, - DEV_HWMON=2 + DEV_HWMON=2, + DEV_MD=3 }; [..] +/* /proc/sys/dev/md */ +enum { + DEV_MD_SPEED_LIMIT=1 };
2.2.18pre24:
enum { DEV_CDROM=1, DEV_HWMON=2, DEV_MAC_HID=3 };
2.4.0-test12-pre2:
enum { DEV_CDROM=1, DEV_HWMON=2, DEV_PARPORT=3, DEV_RAID=4, DEV_MAC_HID=5 }; [..] /* /proc/sys/dev/raid */ enum { DEV_RAID_SPEED_LIMIT_MIN=1, DEV_RAID_SPEED_LIMIT_MAX=2 };
As we can clearly see nobody cares about the sysctl-by-number interface because it generates collisions too easily so it should be declared obsolete and nobody should use it anymore. sysctl-by-name is less performant but it doesn't generate binary-level collisions so easily and in turn it's a big win for open source projects where everybody has some tons of unofficial patches applied (raid 0.90 in this case).
Andrea - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |