Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 11:19:21 -0400 From: Ryan Stone <rysto32@gmail.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: What parts of UMA are part of the stable ABI? Message-ID: <CAFMmRNyYng0dai73KW9P1G%2BwqG=fvbhNpT-dRd9MHTeAK7wZzA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <2085699.T9kJlc0rkf@ralph.baldwin.cx> References: <CAFMmRNypU_Y9UKDwpiRtedOCeCPQFOsVuswN0-rn3EmVykTAYw@mail.gmail.com> <2085699.T9kJlc0rkf@ralph.baldwin.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:24 AM, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > I do think the normal zone callbacks passed to uma_zcreate() are too public > to change. Or at least, you would need to do some crazy ABI shim where you > have a uma_zcreate_new() that you map to uma_zcreate() via a #define for > the API, but include a legacy uma_zcreate() symbol that older modules can > call (and then somehow tag the old function pointers via an internal flag > in the zone and patch UMA to cast to the old function signatures for zones > with that flag). > I really wasn't clear here. I definitely don't think that changing the ctor, etc to accept a size_t is MFC'able, and I don't think that the problem (which is really only theoretical at this point) warrants an MFC to -stable. I was talking about potentially doing it in a separate commit to head, but that does leave -stable and head with a different API. This can be painful for downstream consumers to deal with, which is why I wanted comments.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFMmRNyYng0dai73KW9P1G%2BwqG=fvbhNpT-dRd9MHTeAK7wZzA>