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/
[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]
