On Wed, 9 May 2012 09:05:47 -0700 Garrett Cooper <yaneg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Hackers, > I've been asked to write up a script to analyze tunables via kenv > for archival purposes an to establish a baseline set of static > variables. In order to make life easier (and be able to do all the > grunt work in a shell one-liner instead of introducing a bug prone > tunable parser) I have written up a patch which would make kenv > function a bit more like sysctl, wrt the fact that sysctl -n > suppresses suffixing a value with the variable name when executed > like so: > > # kenv LINES > LINES="24" > # kenv -n LINES > 24 > > I've also considered keeping the functional defaults and instead > do the following... > > # kenv -v LINES > LINES="24" > # kenv LINES > 24 > > Pro of the first form is that it matches sysctl, pro of the > second form is that it doesn't break backwards 'compatibility'. I > know kenv isn't a widely used utility (albeit, I have seen it used in > a few spots outside of FreeBSD proper), but I was wondering if anyone > could see any potential pitfalls or would have a large degree of > heartburn over changing the default to match sysctl. Thanks! > -Garrett_______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To > unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" Hi Garret, I use it for embedded, kenv is good transport shared by loader, kernel and userland (since there is no RW storages). IMO, kenv != sysctl, so we not need to match sysctl. But backwards 'compatibility' is good reason to select second way. Thanks. WWW -- Aleksandr Rybalko <r...@ddteam.net> _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
