Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:17:16 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: amd64@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: uname -m/-p for compat32 binaries Message-ID: <DDEEE995-FDAC-444B-B2B9-558CF6B6AC1A@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <20100719215746.GC2381@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <20100719213054.GB2381@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <BC1D5EFF-3B2E-4358-A8E9-29B3CCD25DE4@samsco.org> <20100719215746.GC2381@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Just checked, and I was a little off. We don't actually do this in the = kernel, we override it in the environment UNAME_ variables. All of our = software that wants to look at the machine arch uses uname to do it, so = we go that route. That way, we're not really lying to anything that = wants to get the definitive answer from the hw.machine architecture. I = can't defend it any further than that, maybe Peter or Paul or John can = comment on it. I personally don't see one way as being better than the = other, as they both have potential problems. As you noted in your = previous email, it's an easy change that could have been done long ago; = maybe the fact that it hasn't points to a good reason not to. Scott On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:57 PM, Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 03:52:31PM -0600, Scott Long wrote: >> We do something similar at yahoo, and it's code that we're working >> on packaging up to put back into FreeBSD. I don't know how your code >> differs from ours, and I obviously cannot stop you from committing >> yours, but you're welcome to look at our code. > There is obviously no rush to commit this snippet, and I obviously = would > abstain if this would make larger integration harder. >=20 > Where to look ? Or should I just sit and wait ?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?DDEEE995-FDAC-444B-B2B9-558CF6B6AC1A>