lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [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.

    >
    >


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-04-08 10:57    [W:0.040 / U:0.652 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site