Just checked, and I was a little off. We don't actually do this in the kernel, we override it in the environment UNAME_ variables. All of our software that wants to look at the machine arch uses uname to do it, so we go that route. That way, we're not really lying to anything that wants to get the definitive answer from the hw.machine architecture. I can't defend it any further than that, maybe Peter or Paul or John can comment on it. I personally don't see one way as being better than the other, as they both have potential problems. As you noted in your previous email, it's an easy change that could have been done long ago; maybe the fact that it hasn't points to a good reason not to.
Scott On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:57 PM, Kostik Belousov wrote: > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 03:52:31PM -0600, Scott Long wrote: >> We do something similar at yahoo, and it's code that we're working >> on packaging up to put back into FreeBSD. I don't know how your code >> differs from ours, and I obviously cannot stop you from committing >> yours, but you're welcome to look at our code. > There is obviously no rush to commit this snippet, and I obviously would > abstain if this would make larger integration harder. > > Where to look ? Or should I just sit and wait ? _______________________________________________ freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-amd64 To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-amd64-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
