From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Aug  8 13:06:26 2010
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B2A81065675;
	Sun,  8 Aug 2010 13:06:26 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from emaste@freebsd.org)
Received: from mail1.sandvine.com (mail1.sandvine.com [64.7.137.162])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D96C08FC15;
	Sun,  8 Aug 2010 13:06:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from labgw2.phaedrus.sandvine.com (192.168.222.22) by
	WTL-EXCH-1.sandvine.com (192.168.196.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server id
	14.0.694.0; Sun, 8 Aug 2010 09:06:23 -0400
Received: by labgw2.phaedrus.sandvine.com (Postfix, from userid 10332)	id
	1514F33C00; Sun,  8 Aug 2010 09:06:25 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 09:06:25 -0400
From: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org>
To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <20100808130624.GB40928@sandvine.com>
References: <AANLkTinKaiGFhKRgqQ+Fjm=02VfWCxULe0a68y-PkJx6@mail.gmail.com>
	<86fwyq8rsc.fsf@ds4.des.no> <i3kbis$73l$1@dough.gmane.org>
	<86d3tujh72.fsf@ds4.des.no>
	<AANLkTi=puD+-WeZ+FGdtZtw1v+NnGD_htwNa+En9fcML@mail.gmail.com>
	<864of680wv.fsf@ds4.des.no>
	<AANLkTinraF50O+cp_h1m6TODnoz_7R3WXfjTanh-86mn@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinraF50O+cp_h1m6TODnoz_7R3WXfjTanh-86mn@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Cc: Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav <des@des.no>, Garrett, Cooper <gcooper@freebsd.org>,
	freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Why is TUNABLE_INT discouraged?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 13:06:26 -0000

On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 01:30:19AM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:

> 2010/8/8 Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav <des@des.no>:
> > Garrett Cooper <gcooper@FreeBSD.org> writes:
> >> Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav <des@des.no> writes:
> >> > Perhaps. ??I don't remember all the details; I can't find a discussion in
> >> > the list archives (other than me announcing the change in response to a
> >> > bug report), but there must have been one, either on IRC or in Karlsruhe.
> >> > In any case, I never removed TUNABLE_INT(), so...
> >> It does matter for integers on 64-bit vs 32-bit architectures though,
> >> right
> >
> > Not sure what you mean. ??The original issue was that someone had used
> > TUNABLE_INT() for something that was actually a memory address. ??I
> > changed it to TUNABLE_ULONG(). ??Of course, if your tunable is a boolean
> > value or something like maxprocs, an int is fine - but so is a long.
> 
> Semantically valid but using TUNABLE_INT to hold pointers is a
> developer bug, not the fault of the API, and there's nothing wrong
> with "int" as a data type in this context.

I agree with Ivan here.  If we can't find an actual reason to
universally prefer long I'd like to remove this comment.

As a counterpoint to the preference for long I can offer a reason to
prefer int: the same variable is often exposed by both a tunable and a
sysctls, and a sysctl using long can have 32-bit compat issues.  (That
is, a 32-bit app using sysctlbyname will try to use 4 bytes for a long.)

-Ed