Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:21:48 -0800 (PST) From: Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com> To: abial@webgiro.com (Andrzej Bialecki) Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Modules and sysctl tree Message-ID: <199912101821.KAA84629@bubba.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.20.9912100934240.76117-100000@mx.webgiro.com> from Andrzej Bialecki at "Dec 10, 1999 09:48:12 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andrzej Bialecki writes: > > KLD's are just a linking mechanism, and shouldn't have any more > > significance than that from a usability perspective. > > Hah. If it were so simple... > > Let's take the example of a module foo, which provides unique features of > bar and baz. They are unrelated to any already existing category. Where > they should be hooked up? kernel? machdep? Then these categories will > become a messy, amorphic trashcans. Also, it will be difficult to see > which sysctls will disappear when the module is unloaded. Well, IMHO the problem of how to organize the sysctl tree is orthogonal (ie, completely independent) from how the kernel is linked. I guess if you imagine a world where hundreds of third party vendors are distributing KLD's that do all kinds of crazy things, then yes perhaps we need a "miscellaneous" category eg, misc.foo.bar .. But right now it looks like 99% of KLD's are part of FreeBSD itself. So there's no reason we can't put them in their correct sysctl location right from the beginning. > More or less, my question is: how the sysctl tree will look like when > _most_ of the kernel will be in modules? Just like it does now. -Archie ___________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * http://www.whistle.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199912101821.KAA84629>