re: CVS commit: src/sys/sys

2017-02-24 Thread matthew green
> I'm evaluating it from the osabi (pkgsrc term) point of view. I'm > targeting LLDB for 7.99.62+. If the kernel bump approach is reserved for > loadable kernel modules, I will follow this in future changes. it's about whether code is expected to work in that kernel environment or not. it's not

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/sys

2017-02-24 Thread Robert Elz
Date:Fri, 24 Feb 2017 19:24:34 +0800 (PHT) From:Paul Goyette Message-ID: | In many cases, one might just "ride the previous bump" Yes, I've seen that happen several times, but it would be

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/sys

2017-02-24 Thread Paul Goyette
On Fri, 24 Feb 2017, Robert Elz wrote: Date:Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:04:36 +0100 From:Martin Husemann Message-ID: <20170224080436.gb1...@mail.duskware.de> | (and we already had a bump just a few hours earlier). It would indeed be useful if, when a

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/sys

2017-02-24 Thread Robert Elz
Date:Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:04:36 +0100 From:Martin Husemann Message-ID: <20170224080436.gb1...@mail.duskware.de> | (and we already had a bump just a few hours earlier). It would indeed be useful if, when a change that requires a kernel version

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/sys

2017-02-24 Thread Martin Husemann
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 11:57:36PM +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > My bump was still legitimate as I changed size of amd64 and i386 struct > lwp - I removed one MD field. Yeah, that is all fine. I was just confused because the specific commit did not seem to want a bump, and while numbers are