Re: [PATCH] Undeprecate the sysctl system call

On Wednesday 18 October 2006 14:59, Alan Cox wrote:
> Ar Mer, 2006-10-18 am 14:41 +0200, ysgrifennodd Andi Kleen:
> > It's less work long term, mostly because all the rejects for sysctl.h will 
> > go away. And it's more compatible than just removing sysctl(2) completely.
> 
> What rejects for sysctl.h, nobody is going to add new entries to
> sysctl(2) so there will be no rejects.

Yes, but it still means the bizarre register_sysctl() call convention
has to be maintained internally.

If the existing sysctl.c/sysctl.h stuff wasn't needed anymore this
could be replaced with a sane

register_sysctl_name("a/b/c", &sysctl_struct) 

and clean up a lot of code.

-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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • [PATCHv2] Undeprecate the sysctl system call
    • From: Cal Peake <[email protected]>

• References:
  • config SYSCTL_SYSCALL
    • From: "Jan Beulich" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Undeprecate the sysctl system call
    • From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Undeprecate the sysctl system call
    • From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] x86_64: store Socket ID in phys_proc_id
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] x86_64 add NX mask for PTE entry
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] Undeprecate the sysctl system call
• Next by thread: [PATCHv2] Undeprecate the sysctl system call
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]