Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 21:23:03 -0700 From: hiren panchasara <hiren@strugglingcoder.info> To: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org>, hselasky@FreeBSD.org Cc: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>, freebsd current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: setting tunables in stable/10 vs head? Message-ID: <20150611042303.GC4757@strugglingcoder.info> In-Reply-To: <1433995674.1200.399.camel@freebsd.org> References: <1249942556.55526194.1433967239788.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> <20150611034445.GB4757@strugglingcoder.info> <1433995674.1200.399.camel@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--i7F3eY7HS/tUJxUd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 06/10/15 at 10:07P, Ian Lepore wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 20:44 -0700, hiren panchasara wrote:
> > On 06/10/15 at 04:13P, Rick Macklem wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >=20
> > > I just MFC'd a patch from head to stable/10 that defines some
> > > tunables using CTLFLAG_RDTUN. Although the MFC didn't break
> > > anything, the tunables don't get changed by the values in /boot/loade=
r.conf.
> > >=20
> > > By applying a patch like this:
> > > SYSCTL_DECL(_vfs_nfsd);
> > > int nfsrv_statehashsize =3D NFSSTATEHASHSIZE;
> > > +TUNABLE_INT("vfs.nfsd.statehashsize", &nfsrv_statehashsize);
> > > SYSCTL_INT(_vfs_nfsd, OID_AUTO, statehashsize, CTLFLAG_RDTUN,
> > > &nfsrv_statehashsize, 0,
> > > "Size of state hash table set via loader.conf");
> > >=20
> > > they get set ok.
> > >=20
> > > So, is this correct or have I done something stupid?
> >=20
> > I believe that is correct. hans changed how they are declared with r267=
961
> > and now you do not need TUNABLE_INT() on -head.
> > >=20
> > > And, if it correct, do I commit a patch like the above directly
> > > to stable/10. (It seems that TUNABLE_INT() is discouraged for -head.)
> >=20
> > That's the correct way, afaik.
> >=20
> > Cheers,
> > Hiren
>=20
> Is there a reason the sysctl tunable flag changes can't be MFC'd?
> Leaving changes that widespread un-mfc'd just makes for lots of merge
> conflicts as time goes on (and can also lead to merged code behaving
> differently than expected).
Added Hans to answer the question.
Cheers,
Hiren
--i7F3eY7HS/tUJxUd
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (FreeBSD)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=
=WiVJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--i7F3eY7HS/tUJxUd--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150611042303.GC4757>