Re: sysctl filesystem ?

From: Chris Rees <utisoft_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:35:15 +0100

On Jun 26, 2012 7:07 AM, "Wojciech Puchar" <wojtek_at_wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
wrote:
>
> as well as we don't depend of /proc for normal operation we shouldn't for
say /proc/sysctl
>
> improvements are welcome, better documentation is welcome, changes to
what is OK - isn't.

/proc/sysctl might be useful.  Just because Linux uses it doesn't make it a
bad idea.

Chris

Received on Tue Jun 26 2012 - 04:35:17 UTC

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Robert Watson: "Re: sysctl filesystem ?"
Previous message: Arnaud Lacombe: "Re: sysctl filesystem ?"
In reply to: Wojciech Puchar: "Re: sysctl filesystem ?"
Next in thread: Robert Watson: "Re: sysctl filesystem ?"
Reply: Robert Watson: "Re: sysctl filesystem ?"
Reply: Wojciech Puchar: "Re: sysctl filesystem ?"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:28 UTC