This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] Use uname not sysctl to get the kernel revision
- From: Theodore Tso <tytso at mit dot edu>
- To: Andi Kleen <ak at suse dot de>
- Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm at xmission dot com>, Ulrich Drepper <drepper at redhat dot com>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan at infradead dot org>, "Randy.Dunlap" <rdunlap at xenotime dot net>, akpm at osdl dot org, linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 20:12:22 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use uname not sysctl to get the kernel revision
- References: <m1psgdkrt8.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com> <m1hd1mafe0.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com> <20060712232414.GI9040@thunk.org> <200607130131.46753.ak@suse.de>
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