Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:25:16 -0800 From: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> To: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: dynamic vs static sysctls? Message-ID: <200101180925.f0I9PGj01700@mass.osd.bsdi.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 18 Jan 2001 06:26:44 GMT." <20010118062644.D30538@hand.dotat.at>
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.
Because there's no linkage between the disk device and the filesystem.
An ioctl on the mountpoint might make (a little) more sense.
--
... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his
rivals and unfortunately opponents also. But not because people want
to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force
people to take different points of view. [Dr. Fritz Todt]
V I C T O R Y N O T V E N G E A N C E
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?200101180925.f0I9PGj01700>