Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2010 15:40:35 +0200 From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> To: Garrett Cooper <gcooper@FreeBSD.org> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why is TUNABLE_INT discouraged? Message-ID: <86fwyq8rsc.fsf@ds4.des.no> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinKaiGFhKRgqQ%2BFjm=02VfWCxULe0a68y-PkJx6@mail.gmail.com> (Garrett Cooper's message of "Fri, 6 Aug 2010 23:48:19 -0700") References: <AANLkTinKaiGFhKRgqQ%2BFjm=02VfWCxULe0a68y-PkJx6@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Garrett Cooper <gcooper@FreeBSD.org> writes: > I found the commit where it was made (by des@ -- cvs revision > 1.120), but unfortunately I lack the context as to why that suggestion > is made; the commit isn't very explicit as to why integers tunables > should be discouraged You're supposed to use TUNABLE_LONG or TUNABLE_ULONG instead. From digging in the -current archives, it seems that the motivation was a bug that resulted from using a TUNABLE_INT for a value that was actually an address. It was doubly broken: first because it was too small on 64-bit systems, and second because it was signed. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86fwyq8rsc.fsf>