Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:49:23 -0700 From: Michael Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> To: acpi-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org Cc: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Subject: Re: [acpi-jp 2381] Re: Updated ec-burst.diff patch Message-ID: <AEBF16C0-AD7E-11D7-AD8C-000393DA4D30@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20030703102627.D92002@root.org> References: <20030701103125.R87367@root.org> <3F021133.3040306@kasimir.com> <20030701164231.M88547@root.org> <20030703.052315.32736625.imp@bsdimp.com> <20030703102627.D92002@root.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday, July 3, 2003, at 10:28 AM, Nate Lawson wrote: >> I personally think that all tunable should be read-only (or rw if >> possible) sysctls... > > I'm still not sure why we have both mechanisms. Perhaps a useful > approach > would be to sweep the tree for tunables and change them to sysctls with > appropriate permissions (read-only if in doubt). Then remove the > tunable > mechanism. Care to put together a patch? No. The two are different things, although arguably there should be more integration. The tunable mechanism exists to allow parameters to be set before the kernel starts. Things that are set with tunables tend to be things that used to be statically compiled into the kernel; they're not adjustable once the kernel's up and running. It makes sense to export the values set by tunables into the sysctl MIB, but by their very nature they're not suitable for conversion to sysctls. = Mike -- Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AEBF16C0-AD7E-11D7-AD8C-000393DA4D30>