Jordan K. Hubbard writes:
> > I think the latter. In 'theory' there should be no discernable
> > difference between functionality from a KLD vs. the same functionality
> > compiled directly into the kernel.
>
> Only in theory, of course. :)
>
> As Andrzej has already pointed out, modules can also be loaded and
> unloaded, creating a sysctl space where things enter and leave
> dynamically. Let's say I'm somebody who creates a nifty little GUI
> sysctl editor for the CLI-challenged and, because it's time-consuming
> to build a form with fields for all the relevant sysctl variables, I
> take the obvious shortcut of parsing the output of `sysctl -A' once at
> startup time and then dealing with the individual field callbacks
> thereafter. On my "classic" system with a config-generated kernel,
> this works just fine and my GUI front-end for sysctl is eventually
> declared "useful enough" that I start handing it around. Then
> somebody who actually loads and unloads klds tries to use it, and
> results (needless to say) are no longer quite in alignment with
> expectations. :) Just a hypothetical scenario, of course, but
> I simply wanted to make the point that "no discernable difference"
> might be hard to achieve for certain values of discernment.
I think sysctl nodes appearing and disappearing falls into the
same category as /dev files appearing and disappearing -- it's
a natural thing to do in this day of dynamic devices, etc. but
some programs were written with an implicit assumption that that
would never happen.
In other words, it's not a problem specific to KLD's .. but
it's still a problem :-)
-Archie
___________________________________________________________________________
Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * http://www.whistle.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
