Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 16:22:53 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, dyson@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kernfs/procfs questions... Message-ID: <199806042222.QAA04845@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199806042105.OAA02097@dingo.cdrom.com> References: <199806041927.NAA03558@mt.sri.com> <199806042105.OAA02097@dingo.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I'm not saying that kernfs would make this easier, but if I had a tuning > > program that allowed me to tune it (man 8 vmtune), then it would be > > *better* documented. Maybe I'm not screaming so much for the > > implementation, but the interface and the way that new sysctl are added > > w/out any regard to documentation/accessing them. :( > > I think we are perilously close to agreement here. > > You could argue that the absensce of such a utility implies that the > nodes are not there for your general tweaking. ie. they are not > exposed to your interface and thus you can effectively ignore them... I argue shouldn't be exposed to the users then. If it's exposed, it should be documented. In other words, sysctl should go away since very few (if any) of it's knobs are documented except accidentally. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199806042222.QAA04845>