Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 23:07:46 +0000 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> To: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r355828 - head/sys/sys Message-ID: <20191217230746.GB25842@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> In-Reply-To: <f6997e95-2b35-1975-2008-5b374195458b@FreeBSD.org> References: <201912162355.xBGNtUq6078840@repo.freebsd.org> <201912170442.xBH4gUOg063777@slippy.cwsent.com> <f6997e95-2b35-1975-2008-5b374195458b@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 01:28:20PM -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > On 16/12/2019 23:42, Cy Schubert wrote: > > In message <201912162355.xBGNtUq6078840@repo.freebsd.org>, "Pedro F. > > Giffuni" w > > rites: > >> Author: pfg > >> Date: Mon Dec 16 23:55:30 2019 > >> New Revision: 355828 > >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/355828 > >> > >> Log: > >> Double the size of ARG_MAX on LP64 platforms. > >> > >> As modern software keeps growing in size, we get requests to update the > >> value of ARG_MAX in order to link the resulting object files. Other OSs > >> have much higher values but Increasiong ARG_MAX has a multiplied effect on > >> KVA, so just bumping this value is dangerous in some archs like ARM32 that > >> can exhaust KVA rather easily. > >> > >> While it would be better to have a unique value for all archs, other OSs > >> (Illumos in partidular) can have different ARG_MAX limits depending on the > >> platform, For now we want to be really conservative so we are avoidng > >> the change on ILP32 and in the alternative case we only double it since tha > >> t > >> seems to work well enough for recent Code Aster. > >> > >> I was planning to bump the _FreeBSD_version but it was bumped recently > >> (r355798) so we can reuse the 1300068 value for this change. > > This doesn't seem right. Each bump should be for a distinct change and > > documented as such. > > TBH, it is just not worth it: this change will currently benefit only > one port (french/aster) and the update won't be committed until after > the MFC is done. An MFC is a quite long-term solution. If merged to 11 and 12 then any workarounds can't be removed until 11.3 and 12.1 are EOL since we'll be building packages there until that point. -- Brooks [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJd+V/BAAoJEKzQXbSebgfAEusH/0C2BEO1GFQaGD9BLw1TqW8k RBtIn6BEY+fd/xih14ZA5cdC+UzJ0OvbkTXxwf8yrbPbfwANitcxO9zlG13qCRzG +vZ/8HdPfbH5qhWmvoDOG2U3WnKaSsJAW9IYAoO3Au2ulMU68Wm+IyHLPKTKhCxw srXXt6eCM1fLkb2IOPS85Hg6D+iLE9PQg1IsVc1X+MgYPoWaISPcqp7bdIXKpK4a whnQmvfBJOhoOTg15+cl5ohXh2uaAiLyYs4ekm8Pouy6zUCDcTXMSVdRVE+YgLBe D3ejVd9T9IOXAaMVPQx5mxZKDy623fLjCZvL41jL3F8VUI7ZSieEmoYJf2vO804= =fqzI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20191217230746.GB25842>