Thoughts about kenv emulating sysctl
Hi Hackers, I've been asked to write up a script to analyze tunables via kenv for archival purposes an to establish a baseline set of static variables. In order to make life easier (and be able to do all the grunt work in a shell one-liner instead of introducing a bug prone tunable parser) I have written up a patch which would make kenv function a bit more like sysctl, wrt the fact that sysctl -n suppresses suffixing a value with the variable name when executed like so: # kenv LINES LINES=24 # kenv -n LINES 24 I've also considered keeping the functional defaults and instead do the following... # kenv -v LINES LINES=24 # kenv LINES 24 Pro of the first form is that it matches sysctl, pro of the second form is that it doesn't break backwards 'compatibility'. I know kenv isn't a widely used utility (albeit, I have seen it used in a few spots outside of FreeBSD proper), but I was wondering if anyone could see any potential pitfalls or would have a large degree of heartburn over changing the default to match sysctl. Thanks! -Garrett___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Thoughts about kenv emulating sysctl
On Wed, 9 May 2012 09:05:47 -0700 Garrett Cooper yaneg...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Hackers, I've been asked to write up a script to analyze tunables via kenv for archival purposes an to establish a baseline set of static variables. In order to make life easier (and be able to do all the grunt work in a shell one-liner instead of introducing a bug prone tunable parser) I have written up a patch which would make kenv function a bit more like sysctl, wrt the fact that sysctl -n suppresses suffixing a value with the variable name when executed like so: # kenv LINES LINES=24 # kenv -n LINES 24 I've also considered keeping the functional defaults and instead do the following... # kenv -v LINES LINES=24 # kenv LINES 24 Pro of the first form is that it matches sysctl, pro of the second form is that it doesn't break backwards 'compatibility'. I know kenv isn't a widely used utility (albeit, I have seen it used in a few spots outside of FreeBSD proper), but I was wondering if anyone could see any potential pitfalls or would have a large degree of heartburn over changing the default to match sysctl. Thanks! -Garrett___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org Hi Garret, I use it for embedded, kenv is good transport shared by loader, kernel and userland (since there is no RW storages). IMO, kenv != sysctl, so we not need to match sysctl. But backwards 'compatibility' is good reason to select second way. Thanks. WWW -- Aleksandr Rybalko r...@ddteam.net ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Thoughts about kenv emulating sysctl
Hi Aleksandr! On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Aleksandr Rybalko r...@ddteam.net wrote: On Wed, 9 May 2012 09:05:47 -0700 Garrett Cooper yaneg...@gmail.com wrote: ... Hi Garret, I use it for embedded, kenv is good transport shared by loader, kernel and userland (since there is no RW storages). Indeed. IMO, kenv != sysctl, so we not need to match sysctl. But backwards 'compatibility' is good reason to select second way. Which is what I figured; I favored the latter course at first and developed my patch based on that mindset, because I know people hate it when backwards compatibility is broken :) (in all fairness I'm generally one of them). Thanks! -Garrett ___ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
