It doesn't really matter (for me) whether it is sysctl or sysfs
interface. The sysctl approach seemed easier to implement. If the
consensus is to use sysfs, I'll send a patch (for 2.6.24).
Sorry for the incorrect implementation, I guess I stole the code from
unappropriate place :)
Thanks,
Lucho
On 7/23/07, Eric Van Hensbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/21/07, Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >
> > That's separate patch but CTL_UNNUMBERED must die, because it's totally
> > unneeded. If you don't want sysctl(2) interface just SKIP ->ctl_name
> > initialization and save one line for something useful.
>
> As for the 9p code it doesn't seem to need or want a real binary
> interface. The 9p debug code picking of a semi-random number and not
> patching it into sysctl.h like it should for a binary interface is
> an implementation bug, and a maintenance problem.
>
Now that -rc1 is out, lets talk a bit more about this. Lucho can you
provide some level of justification of why you went for a sysctl
interface versus something directly accessible within the file system
-- that would seem more on-par with the 9p philosophy.
Perhaps its time for a general cleanup of the debug_level stuff -- it
was always ugly to have it as a global, but there was just no clear
way to have the session structure available everywhere we use it.
-eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
