> Is this designed to replace sysctl?
Well, I'd suggest replacing *all* the non-process stuff in /proc. Yes.
> In general we want to support using sysctl and similar features WITHOUT
> procfs support at all (of any type). Nice for embedded systems
> especially.
1) My example was implemented as a filesystem. You could just as easily have
a CONFIG_PROC_SYSCALL which implemented access as a syscall, ie. sysctl2().
2) It's not worth the hassle to save 7k of code (well, the final implementation
will be larger than this, but OTOH, your replacement will be non-zero size).
> AFAICS your proposal, while nice and clean :), doesn't offer all the
> features that sysctl presently does.
You're right! My code:
1) Doesn't have the feature of requiring #ifdef CONFIG_SYSCTL in every file
that uses it properly (ie. checks error returns).
2) Doesn't have the feature that compiling without CONFIG_PROC/CONFIG_SYSCTL
wastes kernel memory unless surrounded by above #ifdefs.
3) Doesn't have the feature that it takes over 90 lines to implement a working
read & write.
4) Doesn't have the feature that it's hard to create dynamic directories.
5) Doesn't have the feature that it's inherently racy against module unload.
What was I thinking????
Rusty.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/