Ivan Voras <[email protected]> writes: > Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[email protected]> writes: > > Not sure what you mean. The original issue was that someone had used > > TUNABLE_INT() for something that was actually a memory address. I > > changed it to TUNABLE_ULONG(). Of course, if your tunable is a boolean > > value or something like maxprocs, an int is fine - but so is a long. > Semantically valid but using TUNABLE_INT to hold pointers is a > developer bug, not the fault of the API, and there's nothing wrong > with "int" as a data type in this context.
That's the point. There was no TUNABLE_ULONG() at the time. I added it to fix the bug. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [email protected] _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
