Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:12:49 +0200 | From | Olaf Hering <> | Subject | Re: sysctl |
| |
On Wed, Oct 18, Cal Peake wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > There's apparently some library functions that has used it in the past, > > and I've seen a few effects of that: > > > > warning: process `wish' used the removed sysctl system call > > > > but the users all had fallback positions, so I don't think anything > > actually broke. > > Agreed, nothing seems to have broken by removing it but the warnings sure > are ugly. Is there any reason to have them? If a program relies on sysctl > and the call fails the program should properly handle the error. That > should be all the warning that's needed (i.e. report the broken program > and get it fixed).
You will not see the warning for your failing app anyway due to the max tries == 5 limit. With SLES10 the boot scripts trigger it already. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |