Subject: RE: when to sysctl and when not to?
To: 'Simon Burge' , matthew green <email@example.com>
From: Andrew Sporner <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/16/2000 07:26:48
So what do I need to get this code in 'current'? Is
this a patch or will it be committed to the source
From: Simon Burge [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 12:45 AM
To: matthew green
Subject: Re: when to sysctl and when not to?
matthew green wrote:
> There's scope to go even further and use
> if (memf == NULL || strcmp(memf, _PATH_MEM) == 0)
> i think this may be going too far.
> perhaps we could document in the kvm commands that if you do
> pass a memory file, you want to use kvm-style accesses...
At the moment, there's no documentation in the kvm commands to say that
they might not use kvm (and most don't mention kvm anyway). There's
usually words to the effect of "extract default info from /dev/kmem."
Hmm, even that's not right - you need to specify "/dev/mem" and not
"/dev/kmem" - a quick check shows that most of the grovellers reference
/dev/kmem and not /dev/mem. Did something change this in the past and
the man pages not get updated? And what would use /dev/kmem now then