Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 6 Feb 2004 09:18:42 -0600
From:      Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com>
To:        Tim Robbins <tjr@freebsd.org>
Cc:        FreeBSD current users <current@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: FreeBSD 1.1 under -current :-)
Message-ID:  <20040206151842.GE76684@dan.emsphone.com>
In-Reply-To: <20040206092208.GA52274@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au>
References:  <Pine.BSF.4.21.0402060026550.24232-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <20040206092208.GA52274@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In the last episode (Feb 06), Tim Robbins said:
> On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 12:37:30AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> [...]
> > apparrently programs in 1.1 can not handle that the PID can go past
> > 32767 now.. 'wait()' for example fails..
> > 
> > ok , so recompile my kenrel with PID_MAX set to 30000 and try
> > again.. all works fine..
> > 
> > I'm tempted to make PID_MAX a tunable or a sysctl..
> 
> I think FreeBSD 1.1 compatibility is obscure enough that there's no
> need for it to work in out of the box (i.e. GENERIC) at the cost of
> increased complexity in non-obscure configurations. Ideally,
> COMPAT_43 would be broken up into COMPAT_43, COMPAT_FREEBSD[123],
> etc., removed from GENERIC and perhaps then we could define PID_MAX
> conditionally on these options or at least #error out.

The 30000->99999 change went in on rev 1.62 of proc.h, between 3.0 and
3.1, so you would have seen the same problem booting 2.2.8.  It's nice
that we can still run a 1.1 userland, though :)

-- 
	Dan Nelson
	dnelson@allantgroup.com



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040206151842.GE76684>