From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 6 21:51:28 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58FCE16A401; Fri, 6 Apr 2007 21:51:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org) Received: from anuket.mj.niksun.com (gwnew.niksun.com [65.115.46.162]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4C4513C448; Fri, 6 Apr 2007 21:51:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org) Received: from niksun.com (anuket [10.70.0.5]) by anuket.mj.niksun.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l36LpMlK028736; Fri, 6 Apr 2007 17:51:22 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org) From: Jung-uk Kim To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 17:51:15 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <20070407023855.ede13b76.nork@FreeBSD.org> <200704061407.35340.jkim@FreeBSD.org> <86lkh58ajj.fsf@dwp.des.no> In-Reply-To: <86lkh58ajj.fsf@dwp.des.no> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <200704061751.20368.jkim@FreeBSD.org> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88.6/3030/Fri Apr 6 14:44:59 2007 on anuket.mj.niksun.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?= , Roman Divacky , Norikatsu Shigemura Subject: Re: Cannot mount linprocfs by unresolving sysvs?m symbols X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:51:28 -0000 On Friday 06 April 2007 05:20 pm, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Jung-uk Kim 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