From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Jan 21 21:20:46 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A318437B401 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:20:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE09243ED8 for ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:20:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.12.6/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h0M5Kh1e089525; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 22:20:44 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 22:20:25 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <20030121.222025.101592442.imp@bsdimp.com> To: bmilekic@unixdaemons.com Cc: bright@mu.org, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: M_ flags summary. From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20030121224148.A75236@unixdaemons.com> References: <20030122023246.GP42333@elvis.mu.org> <20030121224148.A75236@unixdaemons.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.1 on Emacs 21.2 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message: <20030121224148.A75236@unixdaemons.com> Bosko Milekic writes: : I think that defining M_TRYWAIT and M_WAITOK to 0 for KLD_MODULES is : fine but I do not think that defining them to anything other than 0 is : fine just so that we could add that KASSERT() that Warren suggested in : the allocation code. As you point out, defining it to anything other : than 0 would actually break ABI compatibility. Defining it to 0 for : KLD_MODULES would preserve both API and ABI compatibility for those : who actually care. Certainly, both M_TRYWAIT and M_WAITOK would have : to be defined in order to maintain full backwards-API compatibility. Actually, I think that we shouldn't define them to be 0 for modules. Instead, we should define them to the new values. However, we should accpet '0' with the old meaning for a while (maybe with a printf). There are going to be enough ABI changes between 5.0 and 5.branch that worrying about this one is likely not worth the effort to do special things for the modules. It isn't going to be too much longer before it becomes impossible for 5.0-RELEASE compiled modules to not operate with 5.0-CURRENT. I think we need to go fartehr than Alfred[*] is wanting to go, but until I post a patch I'm going to be quiet. Warner [*] I'd like to appologize for the Alfre's in the last subject line. My keyboard is sometimes producing 0 d's or 2 d's when I hit the 'd' key and I didn't notice. It wasn't intended to be an insult. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message