Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 19:03:43 +0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>, Tiwei Bie <btw@mail.ustc.edu.cn>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [maybe spam] Re: [PATCH] Finish the task 'sysctl reporting current working directory' Message-ID: <5457610F.8070003@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20141103090940.GI53947@kib.kiev.ua> References: <1414987325-23280-1-git-send-email-btw@mail.ustc.edu.cn> <20141103051908.GC29497@dft-labs.eu> <20141103064052.GA1739@freebsd> <5457394E.4050905@freebsd.org> <20141103084129.GF29497@dft-labs.eu> <20141103090940.GI53947@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/3/14, 5:09 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 09:41:29AM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 04:14:06PM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote: >>> why are you using a fixed sysctl MIB number? >>> I thought we were moving towards dynamic sysctls when we add new ones. >>> >> We are? KERN_PROC_* seems to be a complete list with SIGTRAMP added last >> year. >> >> I guess we can do it with OID_AUTO, if there will be any need we can >> switch it back to a static var. > I am very curious how would you make kern.proc.cwd auto, while > still using kern.proc leaf. And more important question is, why ? I had the impression we were using dynamic sysctls in preference to static ones. My memory was that phk set things up so you could add new items and have them not collide with static items. If it's acceptable to do statics, then that's fine, it's just that I haven't seen a static one added for ages.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5457610F.8070003>