On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 06:02:37PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Frederic Crozat <fcro...@suse.com> wrote: > > > > See https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=725412 > > Hm, that really does not look convincing. There is a fundamental > problem here (as Ludwig Nessel points out in the linked discussion: > "sysctl is broken by design unfortunately."), and the discussion nor > the patch do not get to the bottom of that. > > Moreover, (essentially) this patch was already posted and rejected > last year. Lennart then wrote: > > "Well, most modules are loaded asynchronously from udev, so I fear this > won't do much... > > /etc/sysctl.d/ is really only for sysctl settings that exist all the > time, and -- as a special exception -- for network-device related > settings, which we set via a udev rule. > > If people want to apply sysctls based on specific modules that are > loaded, or based on specific hw that shows up (i.e. hw that isn't a > network device) the only sane way is probably via a udev rule..."
The only problem with udev rules is that many system administrators
do not know enough how to write and how to place such rules. What
about simple dependencies for such sysctl settings for specific modules.
Maybe by using a special name spavce below sysctl.d directories or a
special comment within the configure files below modules-load.d
directories. Or similar like the unit configuration of services.
Werner
--
"Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having
a peeing section in a swimming pool." -- Edward Burr
pgpzDOAVFMXRz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
