> <<On Sat, 23 Jan 1999 11:04:15 -0800 (PST), Archie Cobbs <arc...@whistle.com> > said: > > > Peter pointed out that having the sysctl's as symbols was a nice > > advantage of the current system. How important is this? > > I don't think it's important at all. (Then again, I liked the old > system.) > > > If we were willing to give this up, then the SYSCTL() macro could > > just expand to a SYSINIT() that called sysctl_add_subtree() (or > > whatever you want to call it) upon loading. > > Seems reasonable to me. The only problem with this is likely to be > OID_AUTO, which I happen to think is bogus anyway. It is vital that > we maintain the ability to reference sysctl entities by compile-time > constant integers, so as not to break backwards compatibility with > other 4.4 systems and the Stevens books.
Backwards compatibility is one thing, but new nodes should be named, not numbered. OID_AUTO is bogus because it perpetuates the numbering of nodes. -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ m...@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msm...@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msm...@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
