From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 29 15:01:48 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C9DF37B401; Thu, 29 May 2003 15:01:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7495843F3F; Thu, 29 May 2003 15:01:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mux@freebsd.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1920) id 600082ED57F; Thu, 29 May 2003 15:01:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 00:01:47 +0200 From: Maxime Henrion To: John Baldwin Message-ID: <20030529220147.GG21011@elvis.mu.org> References: <20030529215252.GF21011@elvis.mu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: Nate Lawson Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_sysctl.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 22:01:48 -0000 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