Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:51:13 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org, Ryan Stone <rysto32@gmail.com> Subject: Re: TUNABLE_INT question Message-ID: <200902171751.13962.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20090217222142.GA94925@freebsd.org> References: <20090213183229.GA94272@freebsd.org> <200902170931.12983.jhb@freebsd.org> <20090217222142.GA94925@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 17 February 2009 5:21:42 pm Roman Divacky wrote: > On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 09:31:12AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Friday 13 February 2009 5:16:07 pm Roman Divacky wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 03:55:44PM -0500, Ryan Stone wrote: > > > > __FILE__ is a string so you can't concat that with anything to produce an > > > > identifier. In any case, the variable is static so there can't be any > > > > collision problems with other files. > > > > > > I was talking about the SYSINIT parameter. thats a section in a .o > > > file, and I am getting collisions there... > > > > Hmm, are you doing something like this: > > > > #define FOO(string) \ > > TUNABLE_INT(string ## ".bar", &bar); \ > > TUNABLE_INT(string ## ".foo", &foo); \ > > > > FOO(baz) > > > > That would collide as both of the TUNABLE_INT() invocations would have the > > same __LINE__ (the line number of the 'FOO(baz)'). > > no.. it was just two tunables in two files that happened to end up in the same > line. fixed now Hmmm, odd. Those should be static and not matter. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200902171751.13962.jhb>