Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 20:47:52 +0200 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> To: Eric van Gyzen <eric_van_gyzen@dell.com> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Eric van Gyzen <eric@vangyzen.net> Subject: Re: sys/net/radix.h: #define Free(p) for user-land Message-ID: <20131008184752.GA97567@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> In-Reply-To: <5254495E.3050206@dell.com> References: <5252D7F7.3030709@dell.com> <20131008141504.GA22563@FreeBSD.org> <52541ABF.70101@dell.com> <5254495E.3050206@dell.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 01:05:18PM -0500, Eric van Gyzen wrote: > On 10/08/2013 09:46, Eric van Gyzen wrote: > > On 10/08/2013 09:15, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 10:49:11AM -0500, Eric van Gyzen wrote: ... > >> The easiest way to find consumers would be to build test the trivial patch :) > > Gleb, > > > > So true. :) Before I bothered, I just wanted to ask if a change was > > impractical due to API commitments with several known out-of-tree > > consumers. Hearing no such replies, I'll test a patch. > > I simply renamed Free to R_Free, and buildworld succeeded. I built head > r256133 on amd64 with no make.conf or src.conf. > > So, there are [probably] no in-tree consumers. The question then > becomes, do we need these user-land definitions at all? I am pretty sure there are no in-tree consumers, but for the time being please do keep the userland definitions since they are already there. In general it is useful to be able to compile kernel code in userland for functional and performance testing. One could argue that the wrappers could be implemented in a more generic way, but it will probably take a while (or forever) before we get there... cheers luigi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20131008184752.GA97567>