Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 13:11:50 +0100 From: sthaug@nethelp.no To: bde@zeta.org.au Cc: jkh@zippy.cdrom.com, committers@FreeBSD.ORG, darrenr@reed.wattle.id.au, des@flood.ping.uio.no, phk@critter.freebsd.dk Subject: Re: sysctl descriptions Message-ID: <22387.915970310@verdi.nethelp.no> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 10 Jan 1999 23:00:09 %2B1100" References: <199901101200.XAA13355@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >Precisely. I think that having a reasonably up to date *short* description > >of each sysctl would be extremely useful. By short I mean 80 characters > >or less. Yes, I realize that many of the sysctls really need longer > >descriptions - but short descriptions are still useful! > > Most sysctl names already give a useful short description. I have to at least partly disagree here. Some sysctl names are descriptive, not all are. I'd argue that many of them aren't *sufficiently* descriptive, and a short textual description would be helpful. You and I may know what net.inet.tcp.log_in_vain means - but I think it's not at all obvious unless you look at the source. I definitely didn't know what net.inet.ip.fastforwarding was until I looked at the source. You can also argue that nobody should change sysctl values until they have looked at the source. Do we really want that? It seems awfully restrictive. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?22387.915970310>