From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Jan 19 12:45:53 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F299316A418;
	Sat, 19 Jan 2008 12:45:53 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org)
Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E461913C467;
	Sat, 19 Jan 2008 12:45:53 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org)
Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192)
	id 67A5F1A4D7E; Sat, 19 Jan 2008 04:26:57 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 04:26:57 -0800
From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>
To: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20080119122657.GN99258@elvis.mu.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>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] SysV SHM on 64-bit platforms
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 12:45:54 -0000

* Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org> [080119 00:05] wrote:
> While I was working on kern/113218, I realized it is a bigger problem 
> than I originally thought:
> 
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=113218
> 
> 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. :-(

I think this is a step forward so it's not so bad, just make sure
to talk to "re@" about your MFCs, if it'll work out.

> 
> I think I have four options (with corresponding patches):
> - Option 1: HEAD.
> - Option 2: HEAD and RELENG_7.
> - Option 3: HEAD, RELENG_7, and RELENG_7_0.
> - Option 4: Don't do anything ATM.  Break it with ipc_perm later.

I like option 3 if possible.

> FYI, fixing ipc_perm is a lot more complicated and very intrusive.

Why does ipc_perm need fixing?

-- 
- Alfred Perlstein