On Tuesday 16 October 2007 05:46:18 pm Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > On 16/10/2007, John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tuesday 16 October 2007 12:33:11 pm Alexander Leidinger wrote: > > > Constantine asked for review several times on -current. He got some > > > reviews several times for commits to perforce. He incorporated > > > suggestions from those reviews, or explained why it is like it is and > > > why he can not switch (with no replies with suggestions how to solve > > > the problems he sees with the suggestions). Now you come and ask why > > > nobody pointed out some flaws before (without telling us which > > > technical flaws you talk about). > > > > At least from my point of view this is not quite accurate as pretty much all > > my feedback to the p4 commits was ignored with basically "Well, I don't like > > doing it that way". Specifically, with regards to creating dynamic sysctl > > trees, Constantine feels that sysctl_add_oid(9) is a hack rather than > > recognizing that this is a feature of FreeBSD's sysctl system despite > > repeated e-mails on the subject. > > Dear John, > > I have specifically addressed this concern of yours just several weeks ago. > > Please see the following message, which you've never replied to: > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/p4-projects/2007-September/021121.html > > I've used the documented parts of the FreeBSD's sysctl interface to > preserve 100% userland compatibility with OpenBSD.
FreeBSD already provides an interface for creating dynamic sysctl trees that is simpler than having to simulate a pseudo-tree via the .oid_handler routine. In some cases (such as kern.proc) FreeBSD still uses a function handler rather than giving each process its own sysctl node. However, in other cases (generally more recent ones, and ones not as large/performance impacting) such as dev.* or the recent proposal to give ifnet's their own nodes under 'net.if' or the like, sysctl_add_oid(9) is used. As to the process of walking sysctl trees being undocumented, it is simply missing a wrapper routine ala sysctlbyname(3) and a manpage. You could easily provide one and thus provide a facility for enumerating many different things than having several one-off oid_handler routines to enumerate subtrees. However, it is not some "backdoor" hack interface anymore than sysctlbyname(3) is. They are both equally hackish or non-hackish (depending on your point of view). > I cannot possibly > see why you would have a problem with such an approach other than for > the fact that OpenBSD is not a proprietary system with wealthy > sponsors. I think I'll let that speak for itself. -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
