Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 9 Jul 2013 23:44:13 -0700
From:      Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>
To:        Mikolaj Golub <to.my.trociny@gmail.com>
Cc:        freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl>, Robert Millan <rmh@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: ABI change in libkvm (kvm_uread removal)
Message-ID:  <CAGE5yCo4f-uVyKXHp=AvDj_YhSTZbr4ZugBg=vP7QGnjQ_sRUw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20130710063406.GA39842@gmail.com>
References:  <CAOfDtXPT-BQt9aqTNYHRK0XdiqKZsPnsO6s9vei=XCpyBvZZ6w@mail.gmail.com> <20130709185846.GA19508@gmail.com> <20130709211657.GA86400@stack.nl> <20130710063406.GA39842@gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Mikolaj Golub <to.my.trociny@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 11:16:57PM +0200, Jilles Tjoelker wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 09:59:19PM +0300, Mikolaj Golub wrote:
>> > Suggestions how this should be fixed properly (if possible) are highly
>> > appreciated. I will do what people suggest.
>>
>> I would suggest bringing back kvm_uread() in stable/9 so that the ABI is
>> kept. In head, I suggest removing kvm_uread() from the header file and
>> bumping the soname. I think MFCing the soname bump will cause more
>> annoyance than the removal of kvm_uread() itself.
>>
>> Much of the code using libkvm uses it to access kernel internals, which
>> are not a proper ABI/API and change fairly frequently. Therefore, it is
>> probably acceptable for this library not to use symbol versioning.
>>
>> The functions that do not expose the caller to kernel internals like
>> kvm_getprocs() should probably not be used; instead, libprocstat
>> provides a more ABI-stable way to do the same. Calling the sysctls
>> directly is also an option.
>
> Thank you all for your suggestions. I like Jilles' the most. So I am
> going to return kvm_uread back to stable/9 by a direct commit and
> remove it entirely from head and bump soname.

Have you confirmed that the code you're about to add back actually works?

-- 
Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; KI6FJV
UTF-8: So you can \342\200\231 .. for when a ' just won't do
<brueffer> ZFS must be the bacon of file systems. "everything's better with ZFS"



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGE5yCo4f-uVyKXHp=AvDj_YhSTZbr4ZugBg=vP7QGnjQ_sRUw>