Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 23:20:32 +0200 From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, Norikatsu Shigemura <nork@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Cannot mount linprocfs by unresolving sysvs?m symbols Message-ID: <86lkh58ajj.fsf@dwp.des.no> In-Reply-To: <200704061407.35340.jkim@FreeBSD.org> (Jung-uk Kim's message of "Fri, 6 Apr 2007 14:07:27 -0400") References: <20070407023855.ede13b76.nork@FreeBSD.org> <20070406174305.GA90217@freebsd.org> <200704061407.35340.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org> writes:
> On Friday 06 April 2007 01:43 pm, Roman Divacky wrote:
> > I dont like this, I would prefer some dynamic determining
> > whether sysv symbols are present and if not just fill
> > in "safe" values.
> You know I have used sysctlbyname before but it was shot down by
> des. :-(
I didn't shoot anything down. If you read my email again, you'll see
that I pointed out that it was slow, but that we didn't really have a
choice precisely because sysv{msg,sem} were not guaranteed to be
present.
Dropping sysctlbyname() was *your* choice. I agreed with the revised
patch because you pointed out that linprocfs depends on linux, which
depends on sysv{msg,sem}, so we *could* rely on their presence.
DES
--=20
Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86lkh58ajj.fsf>