On Thursday 13 July 2006 02:12, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 01:31:46AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > glibc still works, just slower. But I think the best strategy
> > is just to emulate the single sysctl glibc is using and printk
> > for the rest.
>
> That sounds reasonable, yes.
>
> > > point is moot. But at the same time, what is the cost of leaving
> > > sys_sysctl in the kernel for an extra 6-12 months, or even longer,
> > > starting from now?
> >
> > The numerical namespace for sysctl is unsalvagable imho. e.g.
> > distributions regularly break it because there is no central repository
> > of numbers so it's not very usable anyways in practice.
>
> That may be true, but it doesn't answer the question, what's the cost
> of leaving in sys_sysctl in there for now?
For once linux/sysctl.h is one of the biggest source of patch rejects.
The sooner it goes the better.
>
> In any case, if we really do want to get rid of it, the next step
> should be a working deprecation printk
It was in there for months already.
> and adding something to
> Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt.
That is what Eric's patch did.
-Andi
-
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]
