Subject: Re: Replacing the sysctl() interface.
To: Andrew Sporner <email@example.com>
From: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/26/2000 23:21:07
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 11:34:25AM -0400, Andrew Sporner wrote:
> > Sounds like a file system. How about removing sysctl() altogether, and
> > putting everything under kernfs as a file?
> So now we have to do file I/O to access this??? Isn't this a step
This is a bit delayed, and I'm probably sounding like a broken
record, but each time someone mentions this I'm liking the special
socket type idea more and more. Benefits of a file system namespace
(or more flexible by just passing some kind of struct as the address)
w/o the need to have anything mounted.