Quoting Eitan Adler <lists_at_eitanadler.com> (from Tue, 28 Aug 2018 22:54:04 -0700): > On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 22:46, Alexander Leidinger > <Alexander_at_leidinger.net> wrote: >> > >> > IIRC that would have been the inverted case of running a newer top(1) >> > with an older kernel lacking the v_laundry_pages sysctl. In general I'd >> > expect us to support running an older top(1) with newer kernels if we >> > don't have to bend over backwards to provide compatibility. >> >> If the new top is summing the 3 up anyway, it sounds like we could >> provide the old one as backwards compatibility, even if it is >> redundant. I rather have an redundant counter and an old top working >> (in the generic case of what we promise to our users; in this specific >> case for me I just need to get around to update the jails on the >> corresponding systems), than bailing out without displaying anything. > > I'd support this but don't feel like it justifies breaking the freeze. > After the 12.x freeze is over I'll implement this. I would rather say this justifies breaking the freeze. Think about an user updating to 12.0... and having a 11.x jail inside (maybe as a first step before updating the jail itself, or not at all because of a bug in a 12.0 library he haven't found but is hitting the user). We want him to be able to have top working, don't we? Bye, Alexander. -- http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander_at_Leidinger.net: PGP 0x8F31830F9F2772BF http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild_at_FreeBSD.org : PGP 0x8F31830F9F2772BFReceived on Wed Aug 29 2018 - 07:11:24 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:18 UTC