Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2021 00:36:03 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: multimedia@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 259787] sched.h: unknown type name 'cpu_set_t' after 160b4b922b6021848b6b48afc894d16b879b7af2 Message-ID: <bug-259787-12827-icxQpkliAC@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-259787-12827@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-259787-12827@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D259787 --- Comment #18 from Konstantin Belousov <kib@FreeBSD.org> --- I definitely want/need a feedback from ports maintainers. In particular: 1. Should sched_getaffinity(3), sched_setaffinity(3), and sched_getcpu() prototypes be available regardless of _WANT_CPU_SET_T? I suppose that yes, but need a direct answer. 2. Should cpu_set_t typedef available under _WANT_CPU_SET_T or just under _BSD_VISIBLE? I do not have an opinion there, and suspect that removal of _WANT_CPU_SET_T could indeed simplify some ports. This is also some plan to stop exposing BIT_* API to userspace, so that it gets less conflicts with namespace poluution just by pulling sched.h. But = this require some time to materialize. Is there anything else src can help ports? There is more stuff planned, see D32360 and D32505, but I expect these be much less problematic (sched_getaffinity() problems were indeed a surprise to me). --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-259787-12827-icxQpkliAC>