I wrote: > > >>> By static MACHINE_ARCH, or dynamic sysctl(3)? > > >>> If dynamic sysctl(3) is prefered, which node? > > >> > > >> hw.machine_arch > > >> > > >> which has been defined for a long long time. > > > > > > Yes, defined before sf vs hf issue arised, and > > > you have changed the definition (i.e. make it dynamic) > > > without public discussion. That's the problem. > > > > It was already dynamic (it changes for compat_netbsd32). > > Then you also changed hw.machine_arch implementation but > didn't notice MACHINE_ARCH in <machine/param.h> at that time? > > You proposed MACHINE_ARCH removal later, but > you have never answered my question in that thread.
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/source-changes/2013/10/26/msg048721.html >> Module Name: src >> Committed By: matt >> Date: Sat Oct 26 18:07:52 UTC 2013 >> >> Modified Files: >> src/sys/arch/arm/include: param.h >> >> Log Message: >> Use CPP symbols to determine the right MACHINE_ARCH Matt, you have changed your mind and committed different fix without posting any messages to tech-* mailing list. Please stop that. Please post whole your strategy first before random bandaid fixes. You have not answered about other sf/hf ports like mips and sh. --- Izumi Tsutsui