That just moves the supposed problem: now the kernel is dictating "names"
passed to sysctl(). The argument doesn't seem to be over names so much as
it is over the *structure* imposed on the names.
The real question is whether there is any alternative to the kernel
dictating these so-called policies. The kernel and userspace have to
agree on a minimum set of "names" or the kernel is not usable. You can't
decide to use your own arrangement of syscall number bindings; you have to
use the same ones that the kernel recognizes. For a given syscall, you
can't give the arguments in any order you like; you have to give what the
kernel expects to get if you want the results *you* expect.
In the case of sysctl() the user and the kernel must agree on which names
are passed because there is no mapping interposed. But things are
different with /dev, because there is a mapping (major, minor) <-
/dev/{name} . We can't take the sysctl() name policy away from the kernel
because there is no other way for the user and the kernel to understand
each other. We *can* take away the /dev name policy if we agree on the
(major, minor) name policy, because of the mapping. Therefor I conclude
that it is reasonable for the kernel to dictate sysctl() names but it is
reasonable to refuse to have it dictate /dev names.
-- Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer mwood@IUPUI.Edu Specializing in unusual perspectives for more than twenty years.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/