proposed sysctl(9) changes

[David Young <dyoung%pobox.com@localhost>]

I have been trying to diagnose and fix an obscure bug either in
sysctl(9) or in the way that I use it.  While I was looking, I found out
that it is possible for a sysctlnode to change address if any of its
siblings are added or removed, because its parent stores its value, and
the value of its siblings, in an array that can be rearranged from time
to time.

I think that sysctl(9) will be easier to use, and it will save some
copying and bookkeeping internally, if parents store pointers to their
children instead of the values of their children.  Just in case I find
time to make that so, let me know if there are complicating factors or
downsides that I am overlooking.

Dave

-- 
David Young             OJC Technologies
dyoung%ojctech.com@localhost      Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933