Alan Cox <[email protected]> writes:
>> The status quo is that we don't properly maintain sysctl.h and we arbitrarily
>> change the numbers.
>
> Not the core basic ones that are those people care about
I agree. It just appears that the core basic ones that people
care about is the empty set.
And we the kernel developers have made no promises to keep any
of the sysctl values constant.
>From sysctl.h:
> ****************************************************************
> ****************************************************************
> **
> ** The values in this file are exported to user space via
> ** the sysctl() binary interface. However this interface
> ** is unstable and deprecated and will be removed in the future.
> ** For a stable interface use /proc/sys.
> **
> ****************************************************************
> ****************************************************************
>From the sysctl(2) man page.
> BUGS
> The object names vary between kernel versions. THIS MAKES THIS SYSTEM CALL WORTHLESS FOR APPLICATIONS. Use the
> /proc/sys interface instead.
The empirical evidence is also that no one uses sysctl, and that no one cares.
Once we can find that one user that really cares we can have serious conversations
about keeping sys_sysctl.
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]
