From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Feb 17 22:24:44 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69BEA10656CE;
	Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:24:44 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rdivacky@vlk.vlakno.cz)
Received: from vlakno.cz (77-93-215-190.static.masterinter.net [77.93.215.190])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BF8B8FC20;
	Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:24:43 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from rdivacky@vlk.vlakno.cz)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by vlakno.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 515569CB0FB;
	Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:21:44 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at vlakno.cz
Received: from vlakno.cz ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (lev.vlakno.cz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id PIDEFEHT6ITp; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:21:42 +0100 (CET)
Received: from vlk.vlakno.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by vlakno.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EB089CB125;
	Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:21:42 +0100 (CET)
Received: (from rdivacky@localhost)
	by vlk.vlakno.cz (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n1HMLg7c094998;
	Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:21:42 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from rdivacky)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:21:42 +0100
From: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org>
To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <20090217222142.GA94925@freebsd.org>
References: <20090213183229.GA94272@freebsd.org>
	<bc2d970902131255h1a0965d8g4e8c54a10436ee22@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090213221607.GA25161@freebsd.org>
	<200902170931.12983.jhb@freebsd.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200902170931.12983.jhb@freebsd.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org,
	Ryan Stone <rysto32@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: TUNABLE_INT question
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: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:24:44 -0000

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 09:31:12AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Friday 13 February 2009 5:16:07 pm Roman Divacky wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 03:55:44PM -0500, Ryan Stone wrote:
> > > __FILE__ is a string so you can't concat that with anything to produce an
> > > identifier.  In any case, the variable is static so there can't be any
> > > collision problems with other files.
> > 
> > I was talking about the SYSINIT parameter. thats a section in a .o
> > file, and I am getting collisions there...
> 
> Hmm, are you doing something like this:
> 
> #define FOO(string) \
> 	TUNABLE_INT(string ## ".bar", &bar); \
> 	TUNABLE_INT(string ## ".foo", &foo); \
> 
> FOO(baz)
> 
> That would collide as both of the TUNABLE_INT() invocations would have the 
> same __LINE__ (the line number of the 'FOO(baz)').

no.. it was just two tunables in two files that happened to end  up in the same
line. fixed now