Yep - an ioctl would make good sense.  

I agree that we've already got enough (too many?) kernel options.  But
isn't the idea of sysctl to be able to control the way the kernel does
certain things?  (Like, it enables/disables IP forwarding [if you have
OPTIONS GATEWAY] as an example...)

On Mon, 25 May 1998, Scott Reynolds wrote:

> On Sun, 24 May 1998, Paul Goyette wrote:
> 
> > Perhaps this might a use for a machine-dependent sysctl-settable option?
> > That way, we could distribute a GENERIC kernel which could work both
> > ways. 
> 
> there's another solution.  since this behavior is only useful for the X
> server, it seems to me that there should be a way for the X server to
> enable or disable this behavior.  (perhaps an ioctl would be best suited
> for this.)
> 
> i'm not very keen on sysctl for this.  this feature isn't useful in the
> general sense.  another kernel option is probably a bad idea, as well;
> my goal is to get rid of as many of them as i can.
> 
> --scott
> 
> 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Paul Goyette      | Public Key fingerprint:    | E-mail addresses:        |
| Network Engineer  |   0E 40 D2 FC 2A 13 74 A0  |  paul@whooppee.com       |
| and kernel hacker |   E4 69 D5 BE 65 E4 56 C6  |  paul.goyette@ascend.com |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------