Subject: Re: Replacing the sysctl() interface.
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Chris G. Demetriou <email@example.com>
Date: 06/05/2000 09:29:25
> I really don't like the way freebsd did about malloc types, sysctls
> and kernel internal initialization ordering (based on special
> linker symbol). it is too hard to track down mistakes in those
ordering based on 'special linker symbol' sounds ... special.
however, it seems reasonable to try to do it based on .init-like
note that, in general, requiring ordering in .init/CTORs which you
don't actually enforce yourself is ... likely to cause much trouble.
I don't necessarily think we should be trying to solve some horrible
dependency problem this way... just providing a mechanism for e.g. a
bunch of system things to add themselves to global tables.
> I wasted enough time debugging linker hack mistakes.
> I give my vote to current netbsd way than freebsd way.
So, FWIW, like i said, I've actually had people (researchers) express
to me that the fact that, in their opinion, having to hand-add things
to existing tables, and then maintain them over time as other things
got added to those tables and cause conflicts, was much more of a pain
than it had to be.
in general, this goes slightly further: what do we do if a third party
creating a kernel module or drop in driver .o decides that they _do_
need or want a new malloc type for their code? (It's a perfectly
reasonable thing to want ... else why would there be so many in the
existing code 8-) "they lose."