Quoting Eitan Adler <li...@eitanadler.com> (from Tue, 28 Aug 2018
22:54:04 -0700):
On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 22:46, Alexander Leidinger
<alexan...@leidinger.net> wrote:
>
> IIRC that would have been the inverted case of running a newer top(1)
> with an older kernel lacking the v_laundry_pages sysctl. In general I'd
> expect us to support running an older top(1) with newer kernels if we
> don't have to bend over backwards to provide compatibility.
If the new top is summing the 3 up anyway, it sounds like we could
provide the old one as backwards compatibility, even if it is
redundant. I rather have an redundant counter and an old top working
(in the generic case of what we promise to our users; in this specific
case for me I just need to get around to update the jails on the
corresponding systems), than bailing out without displaying anything.
I'd support this but don't feel like it justifies breaking the freeze.
After the 12.x freeze is over I'll implement this.
I would rather say this justifies breaking the freeze. Think about an
user updating to 12.0... and having a 11.x jail inside (maybe as a
first step before updating the jail itself, or not at all because of a
bug in a 12.0 library he haven't found but is hitting the user). We
want him to be able to have top working, don't we?
Bye,
Alexander.
--
http://www.Leidinger.net alexan...@leidinger.net: PGP 0x8F31830F9F2772BF
http://www.FreeBSD.org netch...@freebsd.org : PGP 0x8F31830F9F2772BF
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
