Subject: Re: Replacing the sysctl() interface.
To: Darren Reed <>
From: Kevin P. Neal <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 06/05/2000 09:13:23
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 11:07:43PM +1000, Darren Reed wrote:
> In some email I received from Aaro J Koskinen, sie wrote:
> > Sounds like a file system. How about removing sysctl() altogether, and
> > putting everything under kernfs as a file?
> The idea being that you can do (for example):
> # echo 1 > /kern/sysctl/net/inet/ip/ip_forwarding
> to enable IP forwarding, as well as the usual file ops. ?
> I don't want to say "no", but I'd want a fairly large consensus on that
> sort of thing before doing so.  I see that sort of thing as a Linuxism,
> which may be good or bad.  I guess this _isn't_ procfs (unlike Linux :).

Hey, wouldn't this require having tons of strings in the kernel?

Wouldn't that drive embedded people totally up the wall? That is, unless
this new interface was optional. If it is optional then are two
interfaces (fs and original sysctl) going to be maintained?
Kevin P. Neal                      

"35. Yekcim Esuom budgeted $100 for renting a truck. How far can he..."
A Survey of Mathematics with Applications, 5th ed, Angel+Porter, p 293