On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:50:32PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> : On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 07:24:23PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> So the issue isn't as cut and dried as you might think.  There's
> multiple different conventions used here in addition to your simple
> example.

I guess we'd have to take a poll to find out.  Seems pretty cut and dried
to me.  COMPAT_FREEBSDn has an established context that does not match
this new usage.  That is - same bit'ness, compatibility with an older
FreeBSD API for the same architecture.  All the other COMPAT_* are for
foreign ABI compatibility.  COMPAT_LINUX32 possibly should have been
"COMPAT_LINUX_X86_64".  (or is it MI and is usable as-is for PowerPC
and MIPS?  I haven't looked that deeply at the code.)

> Users of 64-bit systems that will be using COMPAT_FREEBSD32
> are likely to find this a natural extension of the COMPAT_LINUX32 that
> they are likely already using.

You know I am such a user - and I don't think it is so clear given the
existence (and purpose) of "COMPAT_FREEBSDn" for the past many years.

While it does match the directory name of 'sys/compat/freebsd32', it may
be that "freebsd32" was a poor choice for that directory's name.  But
given the recent discussion in another thread - I won't even suggest
we rename it.

-- David  (obr...@freebsd.org)
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to