| |||||||||||||
Can we admit that sysfs was a really bad idea?Can we admit that sysfs was a really bad idea?Posted Mar 18, 2010 11:13 UTC (Thu) by dgm (subscriber, #49227)In reply to: Can we admit that sysfs was a really bad idea? by glikely Parent article: A critical look at sysfs attribute values
> It certainly doesn't replace sysctl.
Well, according to Wikipedia it does indeed. sysctl is implemented on top of sysfs and procfs.
(Log in to post comments)
Can we admit that sysfs was a really bad idea? Posted Mar 22, 2010 22:02 UTC (Mon) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link]
The wikipedia article is wrong in several respects. "sysctl" and "sysfs" are independent concepts that attempt to address somewhat similar goals. sysctl is a "mangement information base" to which access is provided through the /proc filesystem. It may be that some values accessible through sysctl (i.e. /proc/sys) are also accessible through /sys, but that is certainly not the norm.
|
|||||||||||||