Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:17:19 -0800 (PST) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org, Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@FreeBSD.org> Subject: RE: dynamic vs static sysctls? Message-ID: <XFMail.010115141719.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20010115103757.B7240@fw.wintelcom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 15-Jan-01 Alfred Perlstein wrote: > [moved to -arch] > > * Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@FreeBSD.org> [010115 10:33] wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >>>>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:06:18 -0800 >> >>>>> Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> said: >> >> bright> * Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@FreeBSD.ORG> [010115 10:00] wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > I wish to obtain number of processes forked since boot from userland. >> > So, I made a patch to intend to commit. >> > Any comment? >> >> bright> Why not just use a dynamic sysctl for this? >> >> I think dynamic sysctl is useful for dynamic context. But, here is >> just static and it seems there is no advantage. Isn't it? > > Well all the sysctl's I've added have been dynamic, I think the > only reason for the 'static' sysctls is to give sysctl() a > numeric way to get at the sysctls, which isn't very useful > when we have getsysctlbyname(). Actually, he means dynamic as in SYSCTL_ADD_*. I.e., sysctls created at runtime, not compile time like SYSCTL_*. One should use static sysctls if possible as they don't need malloc() at runtime, etc. Dynamic sysctls are good for providing sysctl access to variables that are dynamically generated. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.010115141719.jhb>