From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 11 16:58:15 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2288794F; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 16:58:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hps@selasky.org) Received: from mail.turbocat.net (mail.turbocat.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:d16:4514::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D906E1624; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 16:58:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hps@selasky.org) Received: from laptop015.home.selasky.org (cm-176.74.213.204.customer.telag.net [176.74.213.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.turbocat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A95A11FE023; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 18:58:11 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5579BE54.6070701@selasky.org> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 18:59:00 +0200 From: Hans Petter Selasky User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: hiren panchasara , Ian Lepore CC: Rick Macklem , freebsd current Subject: Re: setting tunables in stable/10 vs head? References: <1249942556.55526194.1433967239788.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> <20150611034445.GB4757@strugglingcoder.info> <1433995674.1200.399.camel@freebsd.org> <20150611042303.GC4757@strugglingcoder.info> In-Reply-To: <20150611042303.GC4757@strugglingcoder.info> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 16:58:15 -0000 On 06/11/15 06:23, hiren panchasara wrote: > On 06/10/15 at 10:07P, Ian Lepore wrote: >> On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 20:44 -0700, hiren panchasara wrote: >>> On 06/10/15 at 04:13P, Rick Macklem wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I just MFC'd a patch from head to stable/10 that defines some >>>> tunables using CTLFLAG_RDTUN. Although the MFC didn't break >>>> anything, the tunables don't get changed by the values in /boot/loader.conf. >>>> >>>> By applying a patch like this: >>>> SYSCTL_DECL(_vfs_nfsd); >>>> int nfsrv_statehashsize = NFSSTATEHASHSIZE; >>>> +TUNABLE_INT("vfs.nfsd.statehashsize", &nfsrv_statehashsize); >>>> SYSCTL_INT(_vfs_nfsd, OID_AUTO, statehashsize, CTLFLAG_RDTUN, >>>> &nfsrv_statehashsize, 0, >>>> "Size of state hash table set via loader.conf"); >>>> >>>> they get set ok. >>>> >>>> So, is this correct or have I done something stupid? >>> >>> I believe that is correct. hans changed how they are declared with r267961 >>> and now you do not need TUNABLE_INT() on -head. >>>> >>>> And, if it correct, do I commit a patch like the above directly >>>> to stable/10. (It seems that TUNABLE_INT() is discouraged for -head.) >>> >>> That's the correct way, afaik. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Hiren >> >> Is there a reason the sysctl tunable flag changes can't be MFC'd? >> Leaving changes that widespread un-mfc'd just makes for lots of merge >> conflicts as time goes on (and can also lead to merged code behaving >> differently than expected). > > Added Hans to answer the question. Hi, I wasn't sure if MFC'ing would break anything with regard to binary compatibility, so the change was kept in -head and only the broken SYSCTLs were fixed in 10- and 9- . --HPS