Re: [PATCH] Use uname not sysctl to get the kernel revision

[Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>]

On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 01:31:46AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> glibc still works, just slower. But I think the best strategy 
> is just to emulate the single sysctl glibc is using and printk
> for the rest.
> 

That sounds reasonable, yes.


> > point is moot.  But at the same time, what is the cost of leaving
> > sys_sysctl in the kernel for an extra 6-12 months, or even longer,
> > starting from now?  
>
> The numerical namespace for sysctl is unsalvagable imho. e.g. distributions
> regularly break it because there is no central repository of numbers
> so it's not very usable anyways in practice.

That may be true, but it doesn't answer the question, what's the cost
of leaving in sys_sysctl in there for now?  

In any case, if we really do want to get rid of it, the next step
should be a working deprecation printk and adding something to
Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt.

						- Ted