Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 10:21:45 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: sysctl MIB and kernel internals Message-ID: <20000915102144.E12231@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1000915120346.45037J-100000@fledge.watson.org>; from rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG on Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 12:26:56PM -0400 References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1000915120346.45037J-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG> [000915 09:27] wrote: > > I'd like to see us consider moving to an alternative model, divorcing the > implementation internals of various kernel objects (processes, et al) from > the MIB interface retrieving management data about them. I.e., struct > proc would continue to be used in kernel, but relevant fields would be > copied to struct export_proc for export via sysctl. In addition, it would > be worth prefixing these exported structures with a version number > allowing the caller to determine if they support an appropriate version of > the interface, allowing a more comprehensible error. Only fields > desirable to export would be in export_proc, so if an extra pointer is > added to struct ucred (recent resource control changes, capabilities), an > extra pointer to struct proc (jail), etc won't needless break userland > tools. > Look at what NetBSD did: http://www.netbsd.org/Changes/#new_sysctls -- -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?20000915102144.E12231>