Re: sysctl(3) or sysctl(2)?

[Stuart Henderson]

On 2018/01/12 15:38, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> 
> > but we have to find all the tendrils.
> 
> Finding them is easy:
> 
>   $ man -k Xr~sysctl.3 | wc -l 
>   60

Plus web pages.

Re: sysctl(3) or sysctl(2)?

[Ingo Schwarze]

Hi,

Theo de Raadt wrote on Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 08:48:32PM -0700:
> Anthony Coulter wrote:

>> /usr/src/lib/libc/gen/sysctl.3
>> Should it actually be in section 2?

> It used to be wrapped in an odd way.
> The manual page could now be renamed,

We rarely do that, though.  There are many edge cases and historical
accidents regarding which pages are in which section, and the benefit
of moving them is limited.

> but we have to find all the tendrils.

Finding them is easy:

  $ man -k Xr~sysctl.3 | wc -l 
  60

So, we change sixty manual pages referencing sysctl(3) and lose
the history of the file?  I'm not convinced it's worth the work,
and the churn.

Then again, if a developer wants to do the work, i don't object
to it either (non-developers please refrain from sending patches
in this case, that wouldn't reduce the work for the developer
actually committing it).

Yours,
  Ingo

Re: sysctl(3) or sysctl(2)?

[Theo de Raadt]

> According to /usr/src/sys/kern/syscalls.master, sysctl is system call
> number 202. But its manual page is in section 3, at
>   /usr/src/lib/libc/gen/sysctl.3
> 
> Should it actually be in section 2?

It used to be wrapped in an odd way.  The manual page could now be renamed,
but we have to find all the tendrils.

revision 1.130
date: 2015/09/13 17:08:03;  author: guenther;  state: Exp;  lines: +4 -4;  
commitid: BssYI6s6zozAyfkk;
Rename __sysctl syscall to just sysctl, as the userland wrapper is no longer
necessary
ok deraadt@ jsing@

sysctl(3) or sysctl(2)?

[Anthony Coulter]

According to /usr/src/sys/kern/syscalls.master, sysctl is system call
number 202. But its manual page is in section 3, at
/usr/src/lib/libc/gen/sysctl.3

Should it actually be in section 2?

Regards,
Anthony Coulter