On 18 March 2015 at 08:23, John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 11:19:21 AM Ryan Stone wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:24 AM, John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote: >> >> > I do think the normal zone callbacks passed to uma_zcreate() are too public >> > to change. Or at least, you would need to do some crazy ABI shim where you >> > have a uma_zcreate_new() that you map to uma_zcreate() via a #define for >> > the API, but include a legacy uma_zcreate() symbol that older modules can >> > call (and then somehow tag the old function pointers via an internal flag >> > in the zone and patch UMA to cast to the old function signatures for zones >> > with that flag). >> > >> >> I really wasn't clear here. I definitely don't think that changing the >> ctor, etc to accept a size_t is MFC'able, and I don't think that the >> problem (which is really only theoretical at this point) warrants an MFC to >> -stable. I was talking about potentially doing it in a separate commit to >> head, but that does leave -stable and head with a different API. This can >> be painful for downstream consumers to deal with, which is why I wanted >> comments. > > I actually think the API change to fix the zone callbacks is fine to change > in HEAD. I don't think that is too disruptive for folks who might be > sharing code across branches (they can use a local typedef to work around > it or some such).
+1. This isn't exposed to userland, right? So I wouldn't worry about. Kernel progress can't be held back because we're afraid of kernel ABI changes that fix actual bugs. -adrian _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
