From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Tue Oct 23 15:30:13 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B5D7FE9B35 for ; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 15:30:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yaneurabeya@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pg1-x544.google.com (mail-pg1-x544.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::544]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D72881D88; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 15:30:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yaneurabeya@gmail.com) Received: by mail-pg1-x544.google.com with SMTP id i4-v6so818733pgq.9; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 08:30:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=0MhFJ64VzBiH4WqGDtU33x6KY4GqriCDxfbxwK6plnY=; b=q0Pf3j18HefsZecvZ9ur/xNE8aGnTlYnXj656QLqySqu0j/k3/y82lUqPWY0OOzckG BUOzfQFulK+qPgqcYNRPyB2zxpRhIwaWqqycF4YUDpC62ozPwTHV6cn20gTtY9ubQBNj JygWhOufFqDMnhpQdcgMmG4u0MuTozj1lZLv/mlt7cqhfHQ56Ewl64IgFBTcnr9jG+4T mqgvQYt+aHTeIkSDpg8QQFm/iZymlGJzkekxNCW5C2wnBNWCPHWA/KTidbBAv1y7hDjd EcCHtv20emaTvF9NXqg9vcALG0RyTHlTwk8ohFxWaAvPtNXd7Ebtm3OXzMqNAV7ditqd 6Dhw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=0MhFJ64VzBiH4WqGDtU33x6KY4GqriCDxfbxwK6plnY=; b=m67y/tH3bfBUzGJPIwNUoOp6K+fe4KaZeeYbPYL15VRPgFBjC58UDa+DSEEymNhL5V JvkYEzilfE1QEQeUAw0ofPo+Z3ND42070sNJxbmkLh8SKcfa7yjvjPLDwTA0DJqnkT2V 813FxUszcMabI1dKWbeJ8aeKn1N4TIvpPugVhHYgN8gH+bbIjuhn0zT3dAuySplj38vN 7fBeNcGkvD049/ZnE1y7znqZRpBnHlagrZLPvQuNsUMSs7BgIIiKkCDRzV/U38bM417v clUC8rRKahchEG5u60Yt5MuIXd66z6IvVQdfpPMh45eKt+eIxoWKopQ2q3l9mV79p/lM QyHg== X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfogQ1D88qSHKXODnwlZhsu5GQhaY5dbaT8ryZWvmnuz2WLdH+kxk iHboeE6on+jFUafHlRZG47k4RYdH X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV63bEGmRgdQG2B6mXn8D/M4STO/PecQc5r+JZWjrx2A+QF12oXrq19dceTda6+MPQUmzUYyU+A== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:80cd:: with SMTP id a13-v6mr49654616pfn.86.1540308611190; Tue, 23 Oct 2018 08:30:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2607:fb90:816a:e308:8064:6dd6:884e:be4b? ([2607:fb90:816a:e308:8064:6dd6:884e:be4b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a16-v6sm6510759pgb.6.2018.10.23.08.30.10 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Oct 2018 08:30:10 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Subject: Re: which way to update export_args structure? From: Enji Cooper X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (16A404) In-Reply-To: <1540226963.490541.1550623304.5D6A95A6@webmail.messagingengine.com> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 08:30:09 -0700 Cc: Brooks Davis , Rick Macklem , FreeBSD Current Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <5BE9C124-9EA0-4B5D-BE0F-7A1F6C727250@gmail.com> References: <20181003155133.GA57729@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> <20181008170428.GB9766@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> <20181022160508.GB45769@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> <1540226963.490541.1550623304.5D6A95A6@webmail.messagingengine.com> To: Josh Paetzel X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 15:30:13 -0000 > On Oct 22, 2018, at 09:49, Josh Paetzel wrote: >=20 >=20 >=20 >> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018, at 11:05 AM, Brooks Davis wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >> This is the direction I'd been thinking. FWIW, the usecase is more that >> once you've moved away from the struct it's easy to make incremental >> changes then to use a 32-bit mountd on a 64-bit kernel. Moving toward >> size-independent interfaces helps both causes though. >>=20 >> -- Brooks >> Email had 1 attachment: >> + signature.asc >> 1k (application/pgp-signature) >=20 >=20 > Brooks, >=20 > What is the benefit or usecase for running a 32 bit mountd on a 64 bit ker= nel? There generally isn=E2=80=99t a case for doing this, but running a 32-bit mo= untd in a 32-bit chroot can allow someone with a working 32-bit environment a= t a company (for instance) to rebuild environments which rely on NFS mounts a= nd the like. This is an esoteric usecase, but I=E2=80=99ve seen it used before (and I=E2=80= =99ve used it myself ;)..). I don=E2=80=99t think this niche usecase should hinder forward progress in t= erms of modernizing the base OS though. Biarch usecases are diminishing over= time. -Enji=