This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

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

From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa at zytor dot com>
To: Albert Cahalan <acahalan at gmail dot com>
Cc: ak at suse dot de, tytso at mit dot edu, ebiederm at xmission dot com, drepper at redhat dot com, arjan at infradead dot org, 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 22:42:25 -0700
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use uname not sysctl to get the kernel revision
References: <787b0d920607122200m4785f7ddmddf40c079a7460cb@mail.gmail.com>

Albert Cahalan wrote:


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.


Huh? How exactly is this different from system call numbers,
ioctl numbers, fcntl numbers, ptrace command numbers, and every
other part of the Linux ABI?

Mostly because some branches of the sysctl tree have dynamic content which is hard to marshal into a numeric form.

-hpa

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Use uname not sysctl to get the kernel revision
  - From: Albert Cahalan

References:
- Re: [PATCH] Use uname not sysctl to get the kernel revision
  - From: Albert Cahalan

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]