Subject: Re: p_flag in struct proc: int -> uint64_t
To: Elad Efrat <>
From: Bill Studenmund <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 10/02/2006 13:02:32
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 09:43:04PM +0200, Elad Efrat wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a few changes that I'm working on that will require some process
> flags. Regardless of whether eventually I'll commit them or not, we
> reached the point where we have only one unused flag slot left in
> p_flag.
> At the moment it's 'int', so I'd like to bump it to uint64_t at least.
> Is this okay? is there anything that is expected to break? I guess
> sysctl because it uses int32_t, but anything else?

Another option would be to add a second flags (flags2) member. Older=20
arches will probably prefer this, and we also don't introduce new=20
alignment issues.

Take care,


Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (NetBSD)