On 7.8.2010 15:40, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Garrett Cooper <gcoo...@freebsd.org> writes: >> I found the commit where it was made (by des@ -- cvs revision >> 1.120), but unfortunately I lack the context as to why that suggestion >> is made; the commit isn't very explicit as to why integers tunables >> should be discouraged > > You're supposed to use TUNABLE_LONG or TUNABLE_ULONG instead. From > digging in the -current archives, it seems that the motivation was a bug > that resulted from using a TUNABLE_INT for a value that was actually an > address. It was doubly broken: first because it was too small on 64-bit > systems, and second because it was signed.
Ok, but still - if the underlying value really is declared as "int", doesn't it make perfect sense to have something like TUNABLE_INT for it? Forcing "long" is a bit weird in this context, as C long is 32-bit on i386 and 64-bit on amd64. _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
