From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Jan 19 0:52:13 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from earth.backplane.com (placeholder-dcat-1076843399.broadbandoffice.net [64.47.83.135]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDE2B37B698; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:51:56 -0800 (PST) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by earth.backplane.com (8.11.1/8.9.3) id f0J8oO891717; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:50:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:50:24 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Dillon Message-Id: <200101190850.f0J8oO891717@earth.backplane.com> To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: Mike Smith , Tony Finch , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: dynamic vs static sysctls? References: <76032.979892422@critter> Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :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