Is this designed to replace sysctl?
In general we want to support using sysctl and similar features WITHOUT
procfs support at all (of any type). Nice for embedded systems
sysctl may be ugly but it provides for a standard way of manipulating
kernel variables... sysctl(2) or via procfs or via /etc/sysctl.conf.
AFAICS your proposal, while nice and clean :), doesn't offer all the
features that sysctl presently does.
-- Jeff Garzik | Only so many songs can be sung Building 1024 | with two lips, two lungs, and one tongue. MandrakeSoft | - nomeansno
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/