Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 23:06:22 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Cc: Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG>, Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: dynamic vs static sysctls? Message-ID: <20010117230622.K7240@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <20010118062644.D30538@hand.dotat.at>; from dot@dotat.at on Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 06:26:44AM %2B0000 References: <200101152345.PAA22257@beastie.mckusick.com> <200101160727.f0G7Rss00920@mass.osd.bsdi.com> <20010118062644.D30538@hand.dotat.at>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> [010117 22:27] wrote: > 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. It's not a disk action, it's an FS action, an fsctl call might be handy, or a completely static sysctl, but not a disk device ioctl. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." 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?20010117230622.K7240>