From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 30 18:43:37 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6113274A; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 18:43:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.turbocat.net (heidi.turbocat.net [88.198.202.214]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E2582769; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 18:43:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from laptop015.home.selasky.org (cm-176.74.213.204.customer.telag.net [176.74.213.204]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.turbocat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 088C01FE02D; Mon, 30 Jun 2014 20:43:25 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <53B1AFDE.30104@selasky.org> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 20:43:42 +0200 From: Hans Petter Selasky User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin Subject: Re: svn commit: r268055 - head/sys/sys References: <201406301811.s5UIBMxh036571@svn.freebsd.org> <201406301437.08687.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201406301437.08687.jhb@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 18:43:37 -0000 On 06/30/14 20:37, John Baldwin wrote: > Reindenting the whitespace made this diff harder to read. Why hasn't this > been a problem before on powerpc64? Hi, This has not been a problem before, because producers of DATA_SET()'s were using syntax along these lines: static int test2; static int test3; DATA_SET(test, test2); DATA_SET(test, test3); Now if you change this simple code to: static int test2; int test3; DATA_SET(test, test2); DATA_SET(test, test3); It breaks on powerpc64. Should be very easy to reproduce. The problem with SYSCTL's is that some are global and some are not. Before an indirect pointer was hiding this problem from appearing. Do you see? Or do you want me to explain more. --HPS