Subject: Re: Replacing the sysctl() interface.
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/05/2000 11:22:38
On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Darren Reed wrote:
> > > Sounds like a file system. How about removing sysctl() altogether, and
> > > putting everything under kernfs as a file?
> Sounds like a good idea.
> Handling data in/from a filesystem seems to be better understood/easier
> than via some new interface.
> Plus it follows the traditional Unix "everything is a file" philosophy.
As pointed out elsewhere, a fs-interface would still need documenting, as
it'd be a "new" interface.
The real win with using an fs interface is that the kernel is in charge of
turning mib names into locators. Thus we can be use that (for instance)
net.inet.tcp.cwm_burstsize will always address the right thing. With the
current interface, the text name is translaged to a numeric MIB number by
the sysctl program, and that number is fed to the kernel. If thus there
are synchronization problems between the two.