[acpi-jp 2381] Re: Updated ec-burst.diff patch

Michael Smith msmith at freebsd.org
Thu Jul 3 10:49:32 PDT 2003

On Thursday, July 3, 2003, at 10:28 AM, Nate Lawson 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
> would be to sweep the tree for tunables and change them to sysctls with
> appropriate permissions (read-only if in doubt).  Then remove the 
> tunable
> mechanism.  Care to put together a patch?


The two are different things, although arguably there should be more 

The tunable mechanism exists to allow parameters to be set before the 
kernel starts.
Things that are set with tunables tend to be things that used to be 
statically compiled
into the kernel; they're not adjustable once the kernel's up and 

It makes sense to export the values set by tunables into the sysctl 
MIB, but by their
very nature they're not suitable for conversion to sysctls.

  = Mike

Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?

More information about the freebsd-current mailing list