Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:05:29 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> Cc: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.ORG>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, sjr@home.net Subject: Re: sysctl on boot. Message-ID: <20000917140529.P15156@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <200009172043.OAA25218@harmony.village.org>; from imp@village.org on Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 02:43:58PM -0600 References: <200009172034.e8HKYk525175@green.dyndns.org> <200009172043.OAA25218@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Warner Losh <imp@village.org> [000917 13:44] wrote: > In message <200009172034.e8HKYk525175@green.dyndns.org> "Brian F. Feldman" writes: > : IOW, it would add complexity but not gain anything that postponing rc.sysctl > : or adding a secondary rc wouldn't gain. So I wouldn't bother with that :) > : You're making it seem like we need a registry. I'd be a million times > : happier if a kldload(2) specified a hints file that could be used easily. > > I've often thought about adding a sysctl.x.x.x facility like the > hint.x.x.x facility, but haven't ad the time. > > I don't think there are any non-idempotent sysctls that people would > be setting from rc.sysctl. However, I think I'm leaning towards > a second parameter to /etc/rc.sysctl. The first one would be > /etc/sysctl.conf and the second would be /etc/sysctl.modules.conf over > the short term. > > I still think there's value in having a more persistant sysctl > facility in the kernel, but will leave that for later. I agree on both points. -- -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?20000917140529.P15156>