On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:13:04 +0100
Robert Olsson [off-list ref] wrote:

  Ok! But I haven't heard of any successful use of this paticaul API. :-)

Are you really so sure?

 > We could instead make another sysctl (perhaps name it something
 > like "gc_min_interval_ms") to do what you propose, and then
 > we'd keep the existing one around for compatibility.

 All-right a new patch below. 

We must pick a new sysctl number too, for sysctl() system call.
If the only access possible were through /proc then yes your
change would be valid, but due to sysctl() system call the
.ctl_name defines that dimension of the sysctl namespace.