After giving some thought on this, I don't think the complex approach you described would work. Entries in /proc/sys may not exist even if the module was loaded.
yv:~# dmesg|grep 1394
ieee1394: Initialized config rom entry `ip1394'
ohci1394: fw-host0: OHCI-1394 1.1 (PCI): IRQ=[209] MMIO=[e2004000-e20047ff] Max Packet=[2048] IR/IT contexts=[4/8]
ieee1394: Host added: ID:BUS[0-00:1023] GUID[000fea000027c5c2]
eth1394: eth0: IEEE-1394 IPv4 over 1394 Ethernet (fw-host0)
ieee1394: sbp2: Driver forced to serialize I/O (serialize_io=1)
ieee1394: sbp2: Try serialize_io=0 for better performance
yv:~# ls /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/
all default eth1 lo
Notice there is no "eth0" entry. So processing sysctl parameters after loading a module is not enough, at least for network related issues.
Can you describe cases when you believe processing some later sysctl directives are needed?
I believe that using post-up parameters for /etc/network/interfaces is the current supported method. Maybe you could agree that this works for you? In that case, we should reject this bug, I guess.
Hi.
After giving some thought on this, I don't think the complex approach you described would work. Entries in /proc/sys may not exist even if the module was loaded.
Take this case:
yv:~# lsmod|grep 1394 ohci1394
eth1394 18212 0
ohci1394 30800 0
ieee1394 86904 3 sbp2,eth1394,
yv:~# dmesg|grep 1394 e20047ff] Max Packet=[2048] IR/IT contexts=[4/8] 27c5c2]
ieee1394: Initialized config rom entry `ip1394'
ohci1394: fw-host0: OHCI-1394 1.1 (PCI): IRQ=[209] MMIO=[e2004000-
ieee1394: Host added: ID:BUS[0-00:1023] GUID[000fea0000
eth1394: eth0: IEEE-1394 IPv4 over 1394 Ethernet (fw-host0)
ieee1394: sbp2: Driver forced to serialize I/O (serialize_io=1)
ieee1394: sbp2: Try serialize_io=0 for better performance
yv:~# ls /proc/sys/ net/ipv4/ conf/
all default eth1 lo
Notice there is no "eth0" entry. So processing sysctl parameters after loading a module is not enough, at least for network related issues.
Can you describe cases when you believe processing some later sysctl directives are needed?
I believe that using post-up parameters for /etc/network/ interfaces is the current supported method. Maybe you could agree that this works for you? In that case, we should reject this bug, I guess.
Thank you