Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:50:24 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG>, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: dynamic vs static sysctls? Message-ID: <200101190850.f0J8oO891717@earth.backplane.com> References: <76032.979892422@critter>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:An ioctl would end up on the device, which should know nothing about
:filesystems.
:
:If fcntl was extensible like ioctl, opening the rootdir of the filesystem
:and doing an fcntl would be the right way.
:
:Lacking that, a sysctl directly into the filesystem sounds like a
:pretty good solution to me.
:
:--
:Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
:phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956
fcntl would work... after all, the POSIX locking functions already do
copyin/copyout using fcntl. It should give Kirk everything he needs.
It would certainly be better then sysctl.
-Matt
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?200101190850.f0J8oO891717>