On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 11:49:23AM -0500, Josh Paetzel wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018, at 11:05 AM, Brooks Davis wrote: > > > > > This is the direction I'd been thinking. FWIW, the usecase is more that > > once you've moved away from the struct it's easy to make incremental > > changes then to use a 32-bit mountd on a 64-bit kernel. Moving toward > > size-independent interfaces helps both causes though. > What is the benefit or usecase for running a 32 bit mountd on a 64 bit kernel? In practice there isn't much of one. If the support had been there, I'd have tried to use it in CheriBSD to run with our 128-bit pointers. The bigger benefit is that now when you want to add something you just add it and handle the case when it's missing rather than having to add another compat shim for old structs. FWIW, I don't feel all that strongly about this case. If you two don't find it worthwhile to make this change, that's entierly reasonable. It just felt like the use of the export struct within the nmount interface was a conversion bandaid vs an intentional decision. -- Brooks
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:18 UTC