In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jul
ian Elischer writes:
[sysctlfs]
Linux have basically done this in their procfs.
And have recently started to wonder if that wasn't a mistake I've heard.
I would regard sysctlfs as a grave mistake.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member
"Jordan K. Hubbard" wrote:
In other words, it's not a problem specific to KLD's .. but
it's still a problem :-)
Which raises an important issue - other than walking the sysctl tree
regularly looking for changes, how does such an application become
aware that the sysctl space has
According to Garrett Wollman:
It's listening on a kernel notification socket. (Implementation is an
exercise left for the reader, but there are already a few examples.)
Like the routing socket I guess ?
Or we could implement POLLSYSCTL ? :-)
/me hides and runs
--
Ollivier ROBERT -=-
I think the latter. In 'theory' there should be no discernable
difference between functionality from a KLD vs. the same functionality
compiled directly into the kernel.
Only in theory, of course. :)
As Andrzej has already pointed out, modules can also be loaded and
unloaded, creating a
In other words, it's not a problem specific to KLD's .. but
it's still a problem :-)
Which raises an important issue - other than walking the sysctl tree
regularly looking for changes, how does such an application become
aware that the sysctl space has changed? The same holds true for a
On 11-Dec-99 Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
In other words, it's not a problem specific to KLD's .. but
it's still a problem :-)
Which raises an important issue - other than walking the sysctl tree
regularly looking for changes, how does such an application become
aware that the sysctl space
other than walking the sysctl tree regularly looking for changes
Use a similar hack: map the sysctl tree to the filesystem (ala kernfs) and
then stat the directory nodes.
John
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Perhaps a modtime on the sysctl tree as a gross hack? Inside of sysctl() and
the SYSCTL() macros you would update the time every time a write was made, no
de
added, node removed, etc. However, it is a gross hack.
You're right, it would be a gross hack. :) Also, I can see where it
would be
On Sat, 11 Dec 1999 14:00:03 -0800, "Jordan K. Hubbard" [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Which raises an important issue - other than walking the sysctl tree
regularly looking for changes, how does such an application become
aware that the sysctl space has changed?
It's listening on a kernel
"Jordan K. Hubbard" wrote:
In other words, it's not a problem specific to KLD's .. but
it's still a problem :-)
Which raises an important issue - other than walking the sysctl tree
regularly looking for changes, how does such an application become
aware that the sysctl space has
Linux have basically done this in their procfs.
On Sat, 11 Dec 1999, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
Use a similar hack: map the sysctl tree to the filesystem (ala kernfs) and
then stat the directory nodes.
AAIEE! sysctlfs!! :-)
It's an interesting idea and I'm not sure why it also
On Sat, 11 Dec 1999, Julian Elischer wrote:
Linux have basically done this in their procfs.
If we're looking for a gross hack, we need look no further :-)
Kris
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Archie Cobbs wrote:
Andrzej Bialecki writes:
I'd like to know whether we reached some conclusions concerning the naming
of sysctl variables created (or related to) KLDs. I know that Linux
emulator creates "compat.linux". I don't know if any other module creates
Andrzej Bialecki writes:
I'd like to know whether we reached some conclusions concerning the naming
of sysctl variables created (or related to) KLDs. I know that Linux
emulator creates "compat.linux". I don't know if any other module creates
sysctls (well, except my SPY module.. :-).
So,
14 matches
Mail list logo
