Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 06:26:44 +0000 From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> To: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> Cc: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: dynamic vs static sysctls? Message-ID: <20010118062644.D30538@hand.dotat.at> In-Reply-To: <200101160727.f0G7Rss00920@mass.osd.bsdi.com> References: <200101152345.PAA22257@beastie.mckusick.com> <200101160727.f0G7Rss00920@mass.osd.bsdi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> In my work on a background version of fsck, I have used sysctl to >> allow me to pass information into the kernel that I want to have >> updated in the filesystem. > >I'm not convinced that sysctl is the "right" way to go about doing this, >really. But I can't think of a better one. 8) Why not an ioctl on the disk device? You could arrange to pass in an array of free blocks to reduce the number of syscalls. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch fanf@covalent.net dot@dotat.at "Then they attacked a town. A small town, I'll admit. But nevertheless a town of people. People who died." 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?20010118062644.D30538>