Subject: re: PF_KEY socket buffer size issue
To: matthew green <email@example.com>
From: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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.