Garrett Cooper <gcoo...@freebsd.org> writes:
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav <d...@des.no> writes:
> > It might be a good idea to introduce TUNABLE_POINTER and TUNABLE_SIZE.
> I would actually argue against doing that because it would only create
> divergence between sysctl and tunable KPIs...
Not if we also introduce corresponding SYSCTLs. Note that my idea is to
have these as aliases for the correct primitive types.
> (BTW, when you say TUNABLE_SIZE, I assume it would be a size_t quantity?)
Yes.
> Something might need to be done to the values returned by the tunables
> though, because they don't respect boundaries, and can overflow right
> now (which exacerbates the issue with values crammed into smaller
> datatypes)...
Yes. How about this:
- rename getenv_quad() to getenv_signed() and getenv_unsigned()
- add min / max arguments
- implement getenv_quad() (and all the others) in terms of
getenv_number()
e.g.
int
getenv_uint(const char *name, unsigned int *data)
{
unsigned long long tmp;
int rval;
if ((rval = getenv_unsigned(name, &tmp, 0, UINT_MAX)) == 0)
*data = (unsigned int)tmp;
return (rval);
}
(note that due to the min / max arguments, the complexity of handling
both signed and unsigned values in the same function probably exceeds
the complexity of having two very similar functions)
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no
_______________________________________________
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"
