Subject: re: PF_KEY socket buffer size issue
To: matthew green <>
From: Bill Studenmund <>
List: source-changes
Date: 09/10/2003 22:30:03
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, matthew green wrote:

>    But sysctl is grosser than /kern. They both are hierarchical ways of
>    getting info out of the kernel. Everywhere else in the kernel, we
>    call that a file system. So why not just expose it as such?
>    sysctl also has two naming schemes (the text one users are used to and the
>    numeric one used internally). Way gross. :-)
> perhaps.  the point is that sysctl *is* a part of netbsd that isn't optional.

So? How will this ever change? If sysctl is used as a reason to not
improve kernfs, then kernfs will never grow, so sysctl will always be
needed, so kernfs won't be improved, and so on.

Take care,