That's wrong.  One of the major features of the new framework is to
   *allow new sysctl nodes to be dynamically added*.
   
   Given that, it seems to me that the supplier of the node and the supplier
   of the description must be one; that somehow, these strings must be
   embeddable in the kernel.



i admit.  i'm completely stumped by anyone wants to put documentation
into wired kernel text.  the dynamic nature is completely irrelevant.
any subsystem that creates sysctl nodes should document them.  that's
where the documentation is.  it's not like people distribute binaries
without documentation.


i also completely fail to see why this is seemingly the only way to
keep documentation in sync.


why does sysctl documentation get such a special up into the precious
resource of wired kernel text?


i see that andrew has reversed the option so that by default things are
not included, but i'm not sure i really see the point in this case.
most users aren't going to have it enabled.  so the *real* docs need
to be updated anyway [*], so why bother having it duplicated in the
kernel for the few users who do?



.mrg.


[*] i'd feel this way with either polarity of the option, but clearly
with the default off the real docs need to be updated.  (i'll start a
new thread on how we should do this.)