Re: [PATCH] sysctl: Undeprecate sys_sysctl (take 2)

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> writes:
> 
>> On Wednesday 08 November 2006 20:58, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>> The basic issue is that despite have been ``deprecated'' and
>>> warned about as a very bad thing in the man pages since it's
>>> inception there are a few real users of sys_sysctl. 
>> But they only seem to use a small number of actually used with
>> sysctl(2) sysctls.
>> I still think just maintaining a conversion table for 
>> those is the right thing to do.
> 
> I don't know.  Every distinct user of the binary sysctl interface
> used a different entry.  So the fact that there are a small number of
> programs and thus a small number of sysctls used I agree with.  I do
> not agree with the conclusion that we can predict the set of binary
> sysctl that are in use.  We do not get good enough feedback from
> the user community.
> 
> I don't have a problem with the principle of a conversion table
> if it meant that we would never add any additional binary sysctls.
>

Okay, my opinion now...

I think we should change the sysctl system so most sysctls simply aren't 
accessible through the binary interface.  The rest of them should be 
documented in one place, preferrably machine-readable.

However, I think having the binary sysctls available as a limited last 
resort is better than adding ad hoc system calls all over the place, 
like sys_mips.

	-hpa