From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Jan 19 12:31:40 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56DC216A419;
	Sat, 19 Jan 2008 12:31:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from VARK.MIT.EDU (VARK.MIT.EDU [18.95.3.179])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 148D413C458;
	Sat, 19 Jan 2008 12:31:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from VARK.MIT.EDU (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by VARK.MIT.EDU (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m0JCDGsn022194;
	Sat, 19 Jan 2008 07:13:16 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: (from das@localhost)
	by VARK.MIT.EDU (8.14.2/8.14.1/Submit) id m0JCDG1B022193;
	Sat, 19 Jan 2008 07:13:16 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG)
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 07:13:16 -0500
From: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG>
To: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.ORG>
Message-ID: <20080119121316.GA21917@VARK.MIT.EDU>
Mail-Followup-To: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.ORG>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG,
	freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
References: <200801181217.52788.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200801181217.52788.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: [RFC] SysV SHM on 64-bit platforms
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 12:31:40 -0000

On Fri, Jan 18, 2008, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> Because fixing this PR breaks ABI, I had to make compat shims.  But 
> the question is which branch to break?  Since we are very close to 
> 7.0-RELEASE, the question became more complicated.  A lot of people 
> are asking me to fix this PR because it is much needed fix for large 
> database installations, so I have to make a quick decision. :-(

It's far too late to fix it for 7.0. RC1 is out, the packages have
already been built, and this could potentially break things. In
particular, you have no way of guaranteeing that an "old" shared
library that uses semctl(2) linked with a "new" binary will work
properly, or vise versa.

For 8-CURRENT, I'd say go ahead and fix it and add the syscall
compat goop. Then I guess backport it to 7-STABLE after a while if
nothing important breaks and nobody has any objections to that plan.

It would also be cool if struct ipcperm got fixed at the same time
so we only have to do this once. I think that only entails adding
compat crud to semctl and maybe one or two other syscalls. Those
changes aren't urgent enough to make it worthwhile to backport to
7.X IMO, though.

Two questions/comments about the patches:
- Why the #if !defined(__i386__)? There are better ways to test
  whether you're compiling for a 32-bit architecture, if that's
  what you meant.
- The 8.X version needs to take the p_osrel for the equivalent
  change in 7.X into account.