Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:46:52 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 58/59] sysctl: Reimplement the sysctl proc support |
| |
* Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote:
> However it has always been a bug for anything under /proc/sys to not > be a sysctl. It's not subtle breakage but subtle enforcement of the > existing rules.
it wasnt really a bug but an uncleanliness - but yeah. The way i used it is pretty much equivalent to a CTL_UNNUMBERED entry.
> [...] It may be worth adding a test to create_proc_entry that says > "you silly person you need to use sysctls to create an entry under > /proc/sys"
yep, agreed - without the "silly person" bit ;-) It was a whole lot simpler in code to just add in a simple proc entry than a full sysctl table that i used for nothing. (because the sysctl wasnt really syscall-settable)
Ingo - 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/
| |