Subject: Re: Replacing the sysctl() interface.
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Simon Burge <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/28/2000 00:11:30
> 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
> > backwards???
> 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.
Ok, I'm mostly ignorant of the socket idea - so you open a socket, set
some particular socket option read back the data, right? Doesn't this
mean that the complete reply needs to be buffered in the kernel? Take
the kern.proc sysctl case - you copyout as much data as requested and
you're finished, nothing left for a later syscall to finish handling.
Am I missing something, or is the socket approach not suited to large
amounts of data transfer?