>From: xs@kittenz.org
>To: tech-kern@netbsd.org
>Subject: Re: sysctl vs. virtual filesystems.
>Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 23:33:21 +0100
>
>on Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 03:23:48PM -0700, Greywolf wrote:
> > Or we could throw them both out and go back to the dark ages completely
> > instead of doing a half-assed job by eliminating only one of them.
> >
> > They're both useful, depending on your point of view.  If /proc goes
> > away, you need kmem grovelers for process information.
>
>You do not. sysctl kern.proc2 does that. I do not think ps(1) supports fall
>back onto /proc anymore.
>
> > If sysctl goes
> > away, how do you propose to do what sysctl handles now, do you propose
> > we put it into a /sysctl place?  or /ctl/sysctl?  (I'll get to this
> > in a moment.)
>
>Linux places it under /proc. echo value >/proc/path/to/blah

Isn't information like what linux provides via /proc supposed to go in /kern 
on NetBSD? Isn't /proc supposed to be STRICTLY for process information and 
/kern (kernfs) for setting/reading system variables?

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com