Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 17:34:38 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <dyson@FreeBSD.ORG> To: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams) Cc: mike@smith.net.au, nate@mt.sri.com, dyson@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kernfs/procfs questions... Message-ID: <199806042234.RAA00343@dyson.iquest.net> In-Reply-To: <199806042222.QAA04845@mt.sri.com> from Nate Williams at "Jun 4, 98 04:22:53 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nate Williams said: > > > 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. > If you shouldn't use sysctl, then don't run it. If you shouldn't manipulate /dev/rwd0 or /dev/kmem, then don't do that either. Ignore it, and since it won't appear in the filesystem tree, then all will be well. -- John | Never try to teach a pig to sing, dyson@freebsd.org | it just makes you look stupid, jdyson@nc.com | and it irritates the pig. 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?199806042234.RAA00343>