From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Aug  7 19:19:02 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 DF2A71065674
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Sat,  7 Aug 2010 19:19:02 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from freebsd-hackers@m.gmane.org)
Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 922908FC2A
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Sat,  7 Aug 2010 19:19:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <freebsd-hackers@m.gmane.org>) id 1Ohov6-0001dO-2n
	for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Sat, 07 Aug 2010 21:19:00 +0200
Received: from 89-164-124-179.dsl.iskon.hr ([89.164.124.179])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Sat, 07 Aug 2010 21:19:00 +0200
Received: from ivoras by 89-164-124-179.dsl.iskon.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1
	(Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Sat, 07 Aug 2010 21:19:00 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2010 21:18:47 +0200
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <i3kbis$73l$1@dough.gmane.org>
References: <AANLkTinKaiGFhKRgqQ+Fjm=02VfWCxULe0a68y-PkJx6@mail.gmail.com>
	<86fwyq8rsc.fsf@ds4.des.no>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 89-164-124-179.dsl.iskon.hr
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US;
	rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4
In-Reply-To: <86fwyq8rsc.fsf@ds4.des.no>
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: Sat, 07 Aug 2010 19:19:03 -0000

On 7.8.2010 15:40, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Garrett Cooper <gcooper@FreeBSD.org> writes:
>>    I found the commit where it was made (by des@ -- cvs revision
>> 1.120), but unfortunately I lack the context as to why that suggestion
>> is made; the commit isn't very explicit as to why integers tunables
>> should be discouraged
> 
> You're supposed to use TUNABLE_LONG or TUNABLE_ULONG instead.  From
> digging in the -current archives, it seems that the motivation was a bug
> that resulted from using a TUNABLE_INT for a value that was actually an
> address.  It was doubly broken: first because it was too small on 64-bit
> systems, and second because it was signed.

Ok, but still - if the underlying value really is declared as "int",
doesn't it make perfect sense to have something like TUNABLE_INT for it?

Forcing "long" is a bit weird in this context, as C long is 32-bit on
i386 and 64-bit on amd64.