On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 01:02:32PM -0700, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> 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 
> arches will probably prefer this,

I expect in new ones would prefer not to have 64 bit bitfields....

> and we also don't introduce new alignment issues.

Not problems in the sysctl code/structure used for ps(1) when any
additional fields have to be added at the end in order to maintain
binary compatibility.




	David

-- 
David Laight: david@l8s.co.uk