Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Andi Kleen <[email protected]> writes:
On Wednesday 08 November 2006 20:58, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
The basic issue is that despite have been ``deprecated'' and
warned about as a very bad thing in the man pages since it's
inception there are a few real users of sys_sysctl.
But they only seem to use a small number of actually used with
sysctl(2) sysctls.
I still think just maintaining a conversion table for
those is the right thing to do.
I don't know. Every distinct user of the binary sysctl interface
used a different entry. So the fact that there are a small number of
programs and thus a small number of sysctls used I agree with. I do
not agree with the conclusion that we can predict the set of binary
sysctl that are in use. We do not get good enough feedback from
the user community.
I don't have a problem with the principle of a conversion table
if it meant that we would never add any additional binary sysctls.
Okay, my opinion now...
I think we should change the sysctl system so most sysctls simply aren't
accessible through the binary interface. The rest of them should be
documented in one place, preferrably machine-readable.
However, I think having the binary sysctls available as a limited last
resort is better than adding ad hoc system calls all over the place,
like sys_mips.
-hpa
-
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]
