Dave Hansen <[email protected]> writes:
> On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 10:52 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Dave Hansen <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> > Besides ipc and utsnames, can anybody think of some other things in
>> > sysctl that we really need to virtualize?
>>
>> All of the networking entries.
> ...
>> Only in that you attacked the wrong piece of the puzzle.
>> The strategy table entries simply need to die, or be rewritten
>> to use the appropriate proc entries.
>
> If we are limited to ipc, utsname, and network, I'd be worried trying to
> justify _too_ much infrastructure. The network namespaces are not going
> to be solved any time soon. Why not have something like this which is a
> quite simple, understandable, minor hack?
Because it doesn't affect what happens in /proc/sys !
Strategy routines only affect sys_sysctl.
As strategy routines I have no real problems with them.
I haven't looked terribly closely yet.
>> The proc entries are the real interface, and the two pieces
>> don't share an implementation unfortunately.
>
> You're saying that the proc interface doesn't use the ->strategy entry?
> That isn't what I remember, but I could be completely wrong.
Exactly. I have a patch I will be sending out shortly that
make sys_sysctl a compile time option (so we can seriously start killing it)
and it compiles out the strategy routines and /proc/sys still works :)
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
