Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > If you're going to add a new api, you might as well go with the > sysctl-by-name > patch above, which looks reasonably small and simple to me from a very quick > glance at a 2.6.0-era patch. > > The advantage of breaking /proc/sys into a separate filesystem doesn't > introduce a new API (although possibly a new line in the init scripts), so > existing software doesn't have to change to use it, which is good. It > increases orthogonality and granularity, which embedded guys like me are > generally in favor of. :)
- I think sysctlfs makes sense. - I think all that is left is superblock handling and some backward compatibility magic. (Using the follow_link trick to automatically mount /proc/sys) All of the rest of the code pretty much lives in fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c already. I have some other priorities to deal with first but if no one does the work before I get there I will probably implement that eventually. Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
