From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 20 22:05:14 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C19CF6E6; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 22:05:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ambrisko@ambrisko.com) Received: from mail.ambrisko.com (mail.ambrisko.com [70.91.206.90]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 926BC7F0; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 22:05:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Ambrisko-Me: Yes Received: from server2.ambrisko.com (HELO internal.ambrisko.com) ([192.168.1.2]) by ironport.ambrisko.com with ESMTP; 20 Mar 2013 15:07:42 -0700 Received: from ambrisko.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by internal.ambrisko.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r2KM55gk085896; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:05:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ambrisko@ambrisko.com) Received: (from ambrisko@localhost) by ambrisko.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id r2KM550g085895; Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:05:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ambrisko) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:05:05 -0700 From: Doug Ambrisko To: John Baldwin Subject: Re: Increase the mount path to MAXPATHLEN? Message-ID: <20130320220505.GA84878@ambrisko.com> References: <20130319201145.GA19260@ambrisko.com> <201303200909.54555.jhb@freebsd.org> <20130320185639.GI3794@kib.kiev.ua> <201303201800.38090.jhb@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201303201800.38090.jhb@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: Konstantin Belousov , arch@freebsd.org, gleb@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 22:05:14 -0000 On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 06:00:37PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: | On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 2:56:39 pm Konstantin Belousov wrote: | > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 09:09:54AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: | > > On Wednesday, March 20, 2013 6:21:16 am Konstantin Belousov wrote: | > > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 01:11:45PM -0700, Doug Ambrisko wrote: | > > > > I have a patch at: | > > > > http://people.freebsd.org/~ambrisko/statf.patch | > > > > that people can glance at. If this approach is the right way to go | > > > > then I update it for the latest -current and update it. | > > > | > > > No, I do not think this is the right approach. | > > > You are breaking the ABI in the backward-incompatible way. | > > > | > > > What should be done is versioning the fstatfs(2) and other related | > > > symbols from libc. Please look at the lib/libc/include/compat.h | > > > and its use for upgrading the syscalls ABI. | > > | > > Not sufficient. This will not help static binaries or binaries using an | > > older libc (such as libc.so.6) if that libc used these system call vectors. | > > I know we rototilled all the stat system calls for 64-bit ino_t recently, | > > not sure if that also affected statfs. If it did then you might be off | > > the hook for libc.so.6, but static binaries still matter as long as we | > > ship a libc.a. | > I do not see why. Old static binaries, as well old libc.so.6 and libc.so.7, | > would use old syscall numbers. New libc.so.7 use new syscall number, but | > export fstatfs@FBSD_1.0 which is resolved for the old binaries, resulting | > in old binaries calling old syscall. | | Right. I thought you were objecting to his adding new system calls and wanted | to only add wrappers in libc where the compat symbols in libc called the new | system calls and thunked the data. | | > > However, it is true that in addition to new system calls, you now also need | > > to add new versions of the relevant functions via symbol versioning in libc | > > as well. | | I guess you were just saying that Doug needs this additional step, and I concur | with that entirely. Yes, since if I did that then there wouldn't be the upgrade hassle. So that was a good point that I had forgot about. Thanks, Doug A.