Subject: Re: [PATCH] gc_min_interval in milleseconds via /proc (fwd)

From: "David S. Miller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 22:56:27 -0800

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:13:04 +0100
Robert Olsson <[email-masked]> wrote:

>   Ok! But I haven't heard of any successful use of this paticaul API. :-)

Are you really so sure?

>  > We could instead make another sysctl (perhaps name it something
>  > like "gc_min_interval_ms") to do what you propose, and then
>  > we'd keep the existing one around for compatibility.
> 
>  All-right a new patch below. 

We must pick a new sysctl number too, for sysctl() system call.
If the only access possible were through /proc then yes your
change would be valid, but due to sysctl() system call the
.ctl_name defines that dimension of the sysctl namespace.