Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 00:01:47 +0200 From: Maxime Henrion <mux@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_sysctl.c Message-ID: <20030529220147.GG21011@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.20030529180015.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <20030529215252.GF21011@elvis.mu.org> <XFMail.20030529180015.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin wrote:
>
> On 29-May-2003 Maxime Henrion wrote:
> > Nate Lawson wrote:
> >> On Thu, 29 May 2003, Maxime Henrion wrote:
> >> > Modified files:
> >> > sys/kern kern_sysctl.c
> >> > Log:
> >> > When loading a module that contains a sysctl which is already compiled
> >> > in the kernel, the sysctl_register() call would fail, as expected.
> >> > However, when unloading this module again, the kernel would then panic
> >> > in sysctl_unregister(). Print a message error instead.
> >> >
> >> > + /*
> >> > + * This can happen when a module fails to register and is
> >> > + * being unloaded afterwards. It should not be a panic()
> >> > + * for normal use.
> >> > + */
> >> > + if (error)
> >> > + printf("%s: failed to unregister sysctl\n", __func__);
> >>
> >> Thank you, this is helpful. However, we have quite a few error messages
> >> that appear when an attach fails. Is this one necessary in practice or
> >> should the eventual plan be to change the API to return an errno? (Note,
> >> not talking about 5.1 here).
> >
> > I agree with you that we should think about this issue a bit more once
> > 5.1 is out, as I'm not comfortable with this error message. However, if
> > I remember right, changing the API is not an option after 5.1 since we
> > promised to not break APIs and ABIs past this release. If the message
> > turns out to be annoying, it can be removed a bit later and we can have
> > sysctl_unregister() silently fail. Changing the API would probably be
> > better, but I bet we'll have to do this for 6.0.
>
> AFAIK, the API and ABI is not frozen until RELENG_5 is branched.
> That isn't happening at 5.1 release, so there is still some time to
> fix the API/ABI if need be. We really should start avoiding making
> API/ABI changes though after 5.1 is out.
Ok, thanks for the clarification!
Maxime
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030529220147.GG21011>