Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:36:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Subject: Re: [acpi-jp 2382] Re: Updated ec-burst.diff patch Message-ID: <20030703103522.S92002@root.org> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20030703133257.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <XFMail.20030703133257.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, John Baldwin wrote: > On 03-Jul-2003 Nate Lawson wrote: > > On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: > >> I personally think that all tunable should be read-only (or rw if > >> possible) sysctls... > > > > I'm still not sure why we have both mechanisms. Perhaps a useful approach > > would be to sweep the tree for tunables and change them to sysctls with > > appropriate permissions (read-only if in doubt). Then remove the tunable > > mechanism. Care to put together a patch? > > Cause you can't set sysctl's from the loader, only tunables? Are you > going to duplicate the entire kernel environment from 'kenv' in > sysctl? Ah, I thought the two had been merged such that you could do that. -Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030703103522.S92002>