Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:00:42 -0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: sysctl additional functions/macros Message-ID: <477E582A.2060106@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <5064.1199443122@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <5064.1199443122@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <477D931D.4000303@elischer.org>, Julian Elischer writes:
>> I would like to extend the current SYSCTL_INT() with
>> SYSCTL_INT_CLAMPED() or similar, where you also supply a
>> maximum acceptable value. (and maybe a clue as to what to say if it is
>> a bad value).
>
> I'm not sure I think it is a good idea.
>
> Next you'll want SYSCTL_INT_BITMAP(), SYSCTL_INT_POWERS_OF_PI() and
> so on.
>
> A much better idea would be to add a code argument to a version of
> SYSCTL_INT(), so that people could write something like:
>
> SYSCTL_INT(_debug, OID_AUTO, foobar, ORD_WR, &foobar, 0,
> "mumble desc mumble",
> {
> if (newval < 3 || newval > 70 || newval == 59)
> return (EINVAL);
> }
> )
>
I actually considered that already.. It has the advantage of being
flexible.. but is more intrusive to implement. I think you'd have to
extend the sysctl_oid structure.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?477E582A.2060106>