From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jan 21 21:01:49 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 32B2A16A419;
	Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:01:49 +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 DF6F013C457;
	Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:01:48 +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 m0LL1jQd009419;
	Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:01:45 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: (from das@localhost)
	by VARK.MIT.EDU (8.14.2/8.14.1/Submit) id m0LL1jBP009418;
	Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:01:45 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG)
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 16:01:45 -0500
From: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG>
To: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.ORG>
Message-ID: <20080121210145.GA9107@VARK.MIT.EDU>
Mail-Followup-To: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.ORG>,
	freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
References: <200801181217.52788.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
	<20080119121316.GA21917@VARK.MIT.EDU>
	<200801211152.07680.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200801211152.07680.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: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:01:49 -0000

On Mon, Jan 21, 2008, Jung-uk Kim wrote:
> On Saturday 19 January 2008 07:13 am, David Schultz wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Well, since the policy is 'no seat belt for -CURRENT', I think that is 
> aceptable, too.

Right, but you need the compat shims to avoid breaking the ABI
when 8.0 is released anyway.

> > 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.
> 
> So, you are in between option 1 and 4, i.e., bigger fix goes to HEAD 
> and partial MFC to RELENG_7, right?

I'd say try to fix everything once and for all in HEAD, including
struct ipcperm, but only MFC the shmid_ds changes to minimize the
chance that anything breaks between 7.X releases. Others may have
different opinions...

> Actually, the arch check is 
> done like this:
> 
> if (sizeof(size_t) != sizeof(int) && td->td_proc->p_osrel <= WHATEVER)
> 
> I am hoping the compiler is smart enough to optimize away 
> 'sizeof(size_t) != sizeof(int)'.

Yes, gcc does basic dead code elimination like this at all
optimization levels, including -O0. Of course the code within the
if block still has to be syntactically valid on all architectures;
if it isn't, then you need ifdefs.

> > - The 8.X version needs to take the p_osrel for the equivalent
> >   change in 7.X into account.
> 
> I thought it did, didn't it?

Oops, maybe you did and I was looking at one of the other versions
of the patch.