On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 02:38:32AM +0200, Julian Anastasov wrote: Hi Julian,
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Simon Horman wrote: [snip] > > As for the commented out entries. They are supposed to be exposed by > > some other means - I believe the thinking was to comply with the don't > > expose stuff in proc any more idea. Where is the best place to expose > > this kind of stuff? > > I assume /proc/sys is still valid place, only sysctl interface > is scheduled for removal. I'm happy to add them there, so long as that is a good place. > So, as long as these entries are not > accessible from sysctl it is safe to run without strategy handler but if > values can be changed then we will need strategy handler to > properly call update_defense_level() as done in proc_do_defense_mode() > as proc_handler. There could be side effects if new mode is not applied. I'm not sure what you are getting at there. I did write a stratergy for update_defense_level(), but I didn't post it, as I thought that it would not be needed if CTL_UNNUMBERED is used. -- Horms, California Edition - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
