> >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.

Hmm... There is precident for this.  brk() and sbrk() are wrappers
around an internal, undocumented, syscall; yet their manpage is in
section 2.

	--jtc