Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2010 22:33:53 +0200 From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why is TUNABLE_INT discouraged? Message-ID: <86d3tujh72.fsf@ds4.des.no> In-Reply-To: <i3kbis$73l$1@dough.gmane.org> (Ivan Voras's message of "Sat, 07 Aug 2010 21:18:47 %2B0200") References: <AANLkTinKaiGFhKRgqQ%2BFjm=02VfWCxULe0a68y-PkJx6@mail.gmail.com> <86fwyq8rsc.fsf@ds4.des.no> <i3kbis$73l$1@dough.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> writes: > 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? 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... DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86d3tujh72.fsf>