On 03-Jul-2003 Florian Smeets wrote:
> Nate Lawson wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, John Baldwin wrote:
>>
>>>On 03-Jul-2003 Nate Lawson wrote:
>>>
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote:
>I personally think that all tunable should be read-only (or rw if
>possible) sysctls...
Nate Lawson wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, John Baldwin wrote:
On 03-Jul-2003 Nate Lawson wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote:
I personally think that all tunable should be read-only (or rw if
possible) sysctls...
I'm still not sure why we have both mechanisms. Perhaps a useful approach
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, John Baldwin wrote:
> On 03-Jul-2003 Nate Lawson wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> >> I personally think that all tunable should be read-only (or rw if
> >> possible) sysctls...
> >
> > I'm still not sure why we have both mechanisms. Perhaps a useful approa
