Subject: Re: Replacing the sysctl() interface.
To: Nathan J. Williams <nathanw@MIT.EDU>
From: Darren Reed <email@example.com>
Date: 06/06/2000 10:29:49
In some email I received from Nathan J. Williams, sie wrote:
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> (Darren Reed) writes:
> > I don't think I've been very clear here. The idea is to have a "standard"
> > function that would deal with all "int" (say) types of data in the sysctl
> > tree. That would deal with min/max properties.
> > For others, where you want to confine it to being in lots of 1000 or it
> > must always increase, a separate function would be called to "verify" that
> > the new value is acceptable.
> This feels like the Solaris kernel mechanisim for ndd(1), which isn't
> a bad thing. The drivers call a function to put variables into the
> namespace, with a string name, a cookie, and read/write
> callbacks. There are also a standard set of callbacks for reading and
> writing unconstrained basic data types (int, char, maybe string).
This is where I snatched this idea (min/max/default) from.