Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:07:54 -0600 From: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> To: hiren panchasara <hiren@strugglingcoder.info> Cc: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>, freebsd current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: setting tunables in stable/10 vs head? Message-ID: <1433995674.1200.399.camel@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20150611034445.GB4757@strugglingcoder.info> References: <1249942556.55526194.1433967239788.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> <20150611034445.GB4757@strugglingcoder.info>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 20:44 -0700, hiren panchasara wrote:
> On 06/10/15 at 04:13P, Rick Macklem wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I just MFC'd a patch from head to stable/10 that defines some
> > tunables using CTLFLAG_RDTUN. Although the MFC didn't break
> > anything, the tunables don't get changed by the values in /boot/loader.conf.
> >
> > By applying a patch like this:
> > SYSCTL_DECL(_vfs_nfsd);
> > int nfsrv_statehashsize = NFSSTATEHASHSIZE;
> > +TUNABLE_INT("vfs.nfsd.statehashsize", &nfsrv_statehashsize);
> > SYSCTL_INT(_vfs_nfsd, OID_AUTO, statehashsize, CTLFLAG_RDTUN,
> > &nfsrv_statehashsize, 0,
> > "Size of state hash table set via loader.conf");
> >
> > they get set ok.
> >
> > So, is this correct or have I done something stupid?
>
> I believe that is correct. hans changed how they are declared with r267961
> and now you do not need TUNABLE_INT() on -head.
> >
> > And, if it correct, do I commit a patch like the above directly
> > to stable/10. (It seems that TUNABLE_INT() is discouraged for -head.)
>
> That's the correct way, afaik.
>
> Cheers,
> Hiren
Is there a reason the sysctl tunable flag changes can't be MFC'd?
Leaving changes that widespread un-mfc'd just makes for lots of merge
conflicts as time goes on (and can also lead to merged code behaving
differently than expected).
-- Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1433995674.1200.399.camel>