>shouldn't the fix for this be to move sysctl(3) to sysctl(2) ?

that's unclear; the functionality described in sysctl(3) is much more
than is provided by the __sysctl (or is it _sysctl?  i forget) syscall.

I don't think that it can be successfully argued that the current manual
page belongs in section 2.  however, oen could argue that a new man page,
in section 2, for the "raw syscall" would be appropriate.  the problem
with that is that nobody is supposed to be using it, ever.


chris