Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 17:51:15 -0400 From: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Cc: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no>, Roman Divacky <rdivacky@FreeBSD.org>, Norikatsu Shigemura <nork@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Cannot mount linprocfs by unresolving sysvs?m symbols Message-ID: <200704061751.20368.jkim@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <86lkh58ajj.fsf@dwp.des.no> References: <20070407023855.ede13b76.nork@FreeBSD.org> <200704061407.35340.jkim@FreeBSD.org> <86lkh58ajj.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 06 April 2007 05:20 pm, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> 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.
It was a bad choice of words.
Sorry,
Jung-uk Kim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200704061751.20368.jkim>