Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 22:15:39 +0200 From: Robert Millan <rmh@freebsd.org> To: Mikolaj Golub <trociny@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ABI change in libkvm (kvm_uread removal) Message-ID: <CAOfDtXMC_q3MSV3-wYCRj=mtQ0F5e_ZiqccF3RUA4F4BHKmfYw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20130709185846.GA19508@gmail.com> References: <CAOfDtXPT-BQt9aqTNYHRK0XdiqKZsPnsO6s9vei=XCpyBvZZ6w@mail.gmail.com> <20130709185846.GA19508@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2013/7/9 Mikolaj Golub <trociny@freebsd.org>: > I think I thought then that kvm_uread() was for internal usage only > (it was used by libkvm only for reading process args and env via > procfs(5), no other consumers were found in base, no man page). Also > reading from procfs(5) did not look like libkvm job, so after the last > consumers had been removed, retiring it looked natural. I think I > overlooked the declaration in kvm.h and that I might break ABI, > otherwise it would have made me think more and ask other people if the > removal was ok. Well I have no need for kvm_uread myself. In fact I don't even know what it does ;-) The ABI change was detected by Debian build tools during our upgrade to FreeBSD 9.1 codebase, which just means we will have to bump the soname. That is, unless you're planning to bring kvm_uread back? >> Should kvm.h and Makefile be adjusted to reflect the new ABI? > > Suggestions how this should be fixed properly (if possible) are highly > appreciated. I will do what people suggest. If noone else wants it, I'd suggest to bump soname, MFC, and be done with it. -- Robert Millan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAOfDtXMC_q3MSV3-wYCRj=mtQ0F5e_ZiqccF3RUA4F4BHKmfYw>