* IPv4: Why are sysctl settings of abandoned route cache / GC still around?
@ 2020-06-27 12:33 Oliver Herms
2020-06-28 1:08 ` David Miller
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Oliver Herms @ 2020-06-27 12:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: netdev
Hi list,
is there a reason sysctl settings like net/ipv4/route/
- max_size
- gc_thresh
- gc_min_interval
- gc_min_interval_ms
- gc_elasticity
are still around in current kernels?
I find this just confusing and misleading.
If there are no concerns I'd like to remove those. I have a patch ready.
Kind Regards
Oliver
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: IPv4: Why are sysctl settings of abandoned route cache / GC still around?
2020-06-27 12:33 IPv4: Why are sysctl settings of abandoned route cache / GC still around? Oliver Herms
@ 2020-06-28 1:08 ` David Miller
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: David Miller @ 2020-06-28 1:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: oliver.peter.herms; +Cc: netdev
From: Oliver Herms <oliver.peter.herms@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2020 14:33:30 +0200
> is there a reason sysctl settings like net/ipv4/route/
> - max_size
> - gc_thresh
> - gc_min_interval
> - gc_min_interval_ms
> - gc_elasticity
> are still around in current kernels?
Because otherwise scripts would break.
Sysctl is a user facing API.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-06-28 1:08 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-06-27 12:33 IPv4: Why are sysctl settings of abandoned route cache / GC still around? Oliver Herms
2020-06-28 1:08 ` David Miller
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.