From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Jan 21 19:40: 5 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A9FE37B401 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:40:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from tesla.distributel.net (nat.MTL.distributel.NET [66.38.181.24]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F72B43E4A for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 19:40:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bmilekic@unixdaemons.com) Received: (from bmilekic@localhost) by tesla.distributel.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0M3fms75257; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 22:41:48 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from bmilekic@unixdaemons.com) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 22:41:48 -0500 From: Bosko Milekic To: Alfred Perlstein Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: M_ flags summary. Message-ID: <20030121224148.A75236@unixdaemons.com> References: <20030122023246.GP42333@elvis.mu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20030122023246.GP42333@elvis.mu.org>; from bright@mu.org on Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 06:32:46PM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 06:32:46PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: [...] > Peter has made a suggestion that we ressurect the WAIT "flags" for > KLD_MODULES. I'm do not object to it, but I do not think it's > needed. > > Reasons for not bringing back or changing the flags: > 1) we'll go back to having the same problems. > 2) if we change the 0'd flag to 0x2 then we: > waste a bit and > have a failure case where the default was fine. > 3) garbage in cvs. I think that defining M_TRYWAIT and M_WAITOK to 0 for KLD_MODULES is fine but I do not think that defining them to anything other than 0 is fine just so that we could add that KASSERT() that Warren suggested in the allocation code. As you point out, defining it to anything other than 0 would actually break ABI compatibility. Defining it to 0 for KLD_MODULES would preserve both API and ABI compatibility for those who actually care. Certainly, both M_TRYWAIT and M_WAITOK would have to be defined in order to maintain full backwards-API compatibility. This would solve the compatibility issue, it would give us the default "wait" behavior that your change introduced, and it would be a very small delta to what has already been committed. > Personally I would like to see M_NOWAIT defined in a single place > rather than in both malloc.h and mbuf.h, anyone have a suggestion > for that? Ditto. I don't have a suggestion, though. :-( > -- > -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] > 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," > start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' -- Bosko Milekic * bmilekic@unixdaemons.com * bmilekic@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message