On Sun, 24 Jan 1999, Mike Smith wrote: > > <<On Sat, 23 Jan 1999 11:04:15 -0800 (PST), Archie Cobbs > > <arc...@whistle.com> said: > > > > > Peter pointed out that having the sysctl's as symbols was a nice > > > advantage of the current system. How important is this? > > > > I don't think it's important at all. (Then again, I liked the old > > system.) > > > > > If we were willing to give this up, then the SYSCTL() macro could > > > just expand to a SYSINIT() that called sysctl_add_subtree() (or > > > whatever you want to call it) upon loading. > > > > Seems reasonable to me. The only problem with this is likely to be > > OID_AUTO, which I happen to think is bogus anyway. It is vital that > > we maintain the ability to reference sysctl entities by compile-time > > constant integers, so as not to break backwards compatibility with > > other 4.4 systems and the Stevens books. > > Backwards compatibility is one thing, but new nodes should be named, > not numbered. OID_AUTO is bogus because it perpetuates the numbering > of nodes.
...that is, IFF we're going to keep the number/name pairs as OIDs, and not only the numbers, which seems more appropriate... Andrzej Bialecki -------------------- ++-------++ ------------------------------------- <ab...@nask.pl> ||PicoBSD|| FreeBSD in your pocket? Go and see: Research & Academic |+-------+| "Small & Embedded FreeBSD" Network in Poland | |TT~~~| | http://www.freebsd.org/~picobsd/ -------------------- ~-+==---+-+ ------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
