At Wed, 8 Dec 2021 11:36:17 -0800, Jason Thorpe <thor...@me.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: backward compatibility: how far can it reasonably go?
>
>
> > On Dec 8, 2021, at 10:52 AM, Greg A. Woods <wo...@planix.ca>
> > wrote:
> > That's one bullet I've dodged entirely already since my oldest
> > systems are running netbsd-5 stable. (Though in theory isn't
> > there supposed to be COMPAT support for SA?)
>
> int
> compat_60_sys_sa_register(lwp_t *l, const struct
> compat_60_sys_sa_register_args *uap, register_t *retval)
> { return sys_nosys(l, uap, retval);
> }
>
> SA is one of those things that's REALLY hard to provide
> compatibility for.
:-) I see!
Yes, I can appreciate that SA isn't easily maintained in any way.
--
Greg A. Woods <gwo...@acm.org>
Kelowna, BC +1 250 762-7675 RoboHack <wo...@robohack.ca>
Planix, Inc. <wo...@planix.com> Avoncote Farms <wo...@avoncote.ca>
pgp4UZmrDv0i5.pgp
Description: OpenPGP Digital Signature
