From 86926d0096279b9739ceeff40f68d3c33b9119a9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Eric W. Biederman" Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:40:01 -0800 Subject: sysctl: Remove CTL_NONE and CTL_UNNUMBERED Now that the sysctl structures no longer have a ctl_name field there is no reason to retain the definitions for CTL_NONE and CTL_UNNUMBERED, or to explain their historic usage. Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman --- Documentation/sysctl/ctl_unnumbered.txt | 22 ---------------------- 1 file changed, 22 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 Documentation/sysctl/ctl_unnumbered.txt (limited to 'Documentation') diff --git a/Documentation/sysctl/ctl_unnumbered.txt b/Documentation/sysctl/ctl_unnumbered.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 23003a8ea3e..00000000000 --- a/Documentation/sysctl/ctl_unnumbered.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,22 +0,0 @@ - -Except for a few extremely rare exceptions user space applications do not use -the binary sysctl interface. Instead everyone uses /proc/sys/... with -readable ascii names. - -Recently the kernel has started supporting setting the binary sysctl value to -CTL_UNNUMBERED so we no longer need to assign a binary sysctl path to allow -sysctls to show up in /proc/sys. - -Assigning binary sysctl numbers is an endless source of conflicts in sysctl.h, -breaking of the user space ABI (because of those conflicts), and maintenance -problems. A complete pass through all of the sysctl users revealed multiple -instances where the sysctl binary interface was broken and had gone undetected -for years. - -So please do not add new binary sysctl numbers. They are unneeded and -problematic. - -If you really need a new binary sysctl number please first merge your sysctl -into the kernel and then as a separate patch allocate a binary sysctl number. - -(ebiederm@xmission.com, June 2007) -- cgit v1.2.3