Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 19:45:21 +0200 From: Florian Smeets <flo@kasimir.com> To: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [acpi-jp 2382] Re: Updated ec-burst.diff patch Message-ID: <3F046BB1.5080800@kasimir.com> In-Reply-To: <20030703103522.S92002@root.org> References: <XFMail.20030703133257.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20030703103522.S92002@root.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nate Lawson wrote: > 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. You can set sysctls from loder.conf. I just checked it to be shure. regards, flo
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F046BB1.5080800>