> torvalds@transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds) writes:
> >I'll accept a patch that turns sysctl into a proc-only thing.
> Linus,
> how about systems where there is no choice to have a /proc Filesystem?
For embedded systems I can see it is an issue, /proc is simply too large
to include just for a few constants.
> Why not using sysctl (or call it something else) for _READ ONLY_
> access to these basic system constants (e.g. HZ) and the /proc
> Filesystem to read/write them?
Embedded boxes need a way to write to sysctl stuff. People are very close to
having nice working linux embedded stuff without any fs code even linked into
the kernel core.
> If you make sysctl a "proc-only-thing", I would still need a /proc
> filesystem for my chroot-jailed glibc's, wouldn't I?
cp -r, loopback nfs mount, .. ?
sysctl is used by some applications so its a back compatibility call we end
up needed anyway.
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 15 2000 - 21:00:12 EST