Re: CTL_UNNUMBERED (Re: [PATCH] 9p: Don't use binary sysctl numbers.)

[Latchesar Ionkov]

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 <ericvh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 7/21/07, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx> 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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/