Subject: Re: Replacing the sysctl() interface.
To: Chris G. Demetriou <email@example.com>
From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/06/2000 09:28:48
>the point is, _none_ of this should be 'number' based, where that
>number is an index into an array of count structures.
>I don't think i get your point about vmstat -m. It's possible to do
>the exact thing that vmstat -m does, if the M_* type structures are in
>a linked list in the kernel... and that doesn't kill extensibility.
>at the worst, this discussion becomes absurd. What if some random
>file system wants to define 'struct inpcb'? well, surely that'll
>confuse some people... Does that mean that we should put every single
>header in the source tree in sys/sys, or that there should only be one
>single header file at all? 8-)
no. but why do we need to degrade readability than current state?
>Is there some specific problem that changing the M_FOO types to be
>pointers to structures would cause? if so, please present it with
I don't think there's problem in making M_FOO not an index to
please show me how you would solve this, I just don't like the current
freebsd way of doing this (if you make mistake in include file ordering
kernel compilation fails in very non-intuitive way - I don't remember
how to repeat my problem). I just put my personal vote for current
netbsd way than current freebsd way. I still have no opinion about
what you would propose.
>Even if one were to grant that M_AFS, all by itself, is fine, what do
>you then do when there are 50 more similar cases? (indeed, why should
>somebody who doesn't have modules that go with most of the malloc
>types in malloc.h waste space for _their_ type-specific counter
hmm. I see your point. the same problem as hardcoded device major #.