Re: Q: Extending the sysctl MIB for Linuxulator variables

[Daniel C. Sobral]

Matthew Dillon wrote:
> 
> :Well, it's also a module, so perhaps we should create the whole subtree
> :for modules (as was already discussed several times..)
> :
> :Andrzej Bialecki
> 
>     Yes, this is very true.  But I think we are fooling ourselves if we
>     believe linux emulation will not become 'standard' in the near future.
>     Then we'll kick ourselves for giving the sysctl's convoluted names :-)

Also, the way we choose to tread leds to a highly modularized
kernel. Placing stuff in a "module" category would be somewhat
redundant, then.

--
Daniel C. Sobral                        (8-DCS)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

        "You intend to eat me, then?" he asked the dragon.
        "Well, I must admit, more for the amusement than the taste."




To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message