Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 2:54 AM, David Xu <davi...@freebsd.org> wrote:
Garrett Cooper wrote:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Andriy Gapon <a...@freebsd.org> wrote:
[patch attachment was lost]
Ugh... Mailman hates me I guess :(...
on 27/10/2010 19:07 Garrett Cooper said the following:
How about this patch? I implemented this as a readonly tunable and
I don't think that it's correct to call it a tunable or use
CTLFLAG_RDTUN.
As I understand it is a read-only sysctl.
Converted to CTLFLAG_RD.
sysconf tunable, because (AFAIK) the value that is being tested
shouldn't change during runtime after the system has been booted up,
and figuring that the value wasn't going to change it was better to
lose 4/8 bytes on the kernel stack instead of having to recompute the
value every time in a function call, with the associated lost heap /
stack memory in the process, as the assumption is that this libcall
was going to be called frequently by some programs.
The patch looks fine to me. ;-)
If no one opposes the change, could you please commit the patch for me David?
Thanks!
-Garrett
The SC_XXX constants are in rather odd order!
> #define _SC_XOPEN_XCU_VERSION 117 /* user */
> #endif
>
> #if __BSD_VISIBLE
> #define _SC_NPROCESSORS_CONF 57
> #define _SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN 58
> #endif
Does someone just want to save some typing for __BSD_VISIBLE ?
It is wrong if it this true.
Regards,
David Xu
_______________________________________________
svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
