Subject: Re: Replacing the sysctl() interface.
To: Darren Reed <>
From: Johan Danielsson <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 06/05/2000 16:25:13
Darren Reed <> writes:

> There are a few "specials" (such as securelevel) which would be
> handled in this way, but the number of other "tuneables" for which
> this can be applied weights strongly in favour of generic support.

There is nothing that prevent you from supplying a set of standard