lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Oct]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: sysctl
On Wed, Oct 18, Cal Peake wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > There's apparently some library functions that has used it in the past,
> > and I've seen a few effects of that:
> >
> > warning: process `wish' used the removed sysctl system call
> >
> > but the users all had fallback positions, so I don't think anything
> > actually broke.
>
> Agreed, nothing seems to have broken by removing it but the warnings sure
> are ugly. Is there any reason to have them? If a program relies on sysctl
> and the call fails the program should properly handle the error. That
> should be all the warning that's needed (i.e. report the broken program
> and get it fixed).

You will not see the warning for your failing app anyway due to the max
tries == 5 limit. With SLES10 the boot scripts trigger it already.
-
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: 2006-10-18 21:15    [W:0.469 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site