# Julio M. Merino Vidal 2006-05-21:
> On 5/20/06, Jachym Holecek <freza@dspfpga.com> wrote:
> ># Julio M. Merino Vidal 2006-05-20:
> >> On 5/20/06, Mátyás János <jani@xoftware.de> wrote:
> >> >On Sat, 20 May 2006 19:57:13 +0200
> >> >Quentin Garnier <cube@cubidou.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I'd rather see this implemented as BEEP_ONHALT_COUNT == -1 (or maybe
> >> >> 0) than adding yet another option on the subject.  It will make the
> >> >> patch (and documentation) much simpler and clearer.
> >> >
> >> >Hi,
> >> >
> >> >I think you are right. Here comes the simplified version.
> >>
> >> I think it'd be better if the check against -1 was done at run time
> >> rather than during build time.  Ideally, this functionality could be
> >> configured through sysctl (I wanted to do it, but haven't had the time
> >> yet) and, in that situation, it needs to be checked at run time to
> >> work properly.
> >
> >A sysctl sounds like overkill to me -- this is typical "set once"
> >value...
> 
> Except that users that do not want to rebuild the kernel will not be
> able to ever access this feature.

Well, not necessarily true ("gdb is powerful"), but

> This was already discussed.

OK, I forgot about that. For those interested, the discussion starts
at http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-kern/2006/02/24/0001.html

	-- Jachym