From owner-freebsd-arch  Wed Jan 17 22:27: 7 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from hand.dotat.at (sfo-gw.covalent.net [207.44.198.62])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 40C9837B404; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 22:26:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fanf by hand.dotat.at with local (Exim 3.15 #3)
	id 14J8Wy-000JJe-00; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 06:26:44 +0000
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 06:26:44 +0000
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
To: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org>
Cc: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: dynamic vs static sysctls?
Message-ID: <20010118062644.D30538@hand.dotat.at>
References: <200101152345.PAA22257@beastie.mckusick.com> <200101160727.f0G7Rss00920@mass.osd.bsdi.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i
In-Reply-To: <200101160727.f0G7Rss00920@mass.osd.bsdi.com>
Organization: Covalent Technologies, Inc
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
>> In my work on a background version of fsck, I have used sysctl to
>> allow me to pass information into the kernel that I want to have
>> updated in the filesystem.
>
>I'm not convinced that sysctl is the "right" way to go about doing this, 
>really.  But I can't think of a better one. 8)

Why not an ioctl on the disk device? You could arrange to pass in an
array of free blocks to reduce the number of syscalls.

Tony.
-- 
f.a.n.finch    fanf@covalent.net    dot@dotat.at
"Then they attacked a town. A small town, I'll admit.
But nevertheless a town of people. People who died."


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message