[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: MACHINE_ARCH on NetBSD/evbearmv6hf-el current
> >>> 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.
You have never show your whole design how to handle hf vs sf
and the current problem was caused by your changes.
How can you solve it?
Main Index |
Thread Index |