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

[Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>]

On Thursday 13 July 2006 02:12, Theodore Tso wrote:
> 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?

For once linux/sysctl.h is one of the biggest source of patch rejects.
The sooner it goes the better.

>
> In any case, if we really do want to get rid of it, the next step
> should be a working deprecation printk 

It was in there for months already.

> and adding something to 
> Documentation/feature-removal-schedule.txt.

That is what Eric's patch did.

-Andi