Rob Landley <[email protected]> writes:
>
> If you're going to add a new api, you might as well go with the sysctl-by-name
> patch above, which looks reasonably small and simple to me from a very quick
> glance at a 2.6.0-era patch.
>
> The advantage of breaking /proc/sys into a separate filesystem doesn't
> introduce a new API (although possibly a new line in the init scripts), so
> existing software doesn't have to change to use it, which is good. It
> increases orthogonality and granularity, which embedded guys like me are
> generally in favor of. :)
- I think sysctlfs makes sense.
- I think all that is left is superblock handling and some backward
compatibility magic. (Using the follow_link trick to automatically
mount /proc/sys)
All of the rest of the code pretty much lives in fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c
already.
I have some other priorities to deal with first but if no one does the
work before I get there I will probably implement that eventually.
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]
