On 18.05.2020 21:31, Taylor R Campbell wrote: >> Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 21:11:36 +0200 >> From: Kamil Rytarowski <n54%gmx.com@localhost> >> >> On 18.05.2020 20:24, Robert Elz wrote: >>> Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 19:45:55 +0200 >>> From: Kamil Rytarowski <n54%gmx.com@localhost> >>> Message-ID: <ad8e44bb-3778-67ad-6c6d-7ce0681bebbb%gmx.com@localhost> >>> >>> | I have got a local use-case for another P_type (premature to discuss it >>> | in this thread) and I would rather recycle an unused value. >>> >>> Don't do that, it is just a number, use one that hasn't been used >>> for this purpose before. >>> >>> | Do we plan to get Solaris feature-parity with all the types? I assume >>> | that the answer is NO. If so, can we delete the P_ values that are not >>> | applicable for NetBSD? >>> >>> I have no problem with that - just don't reuse the values for some >>> different purpose, keep them reserved (assign them meaningless reserved >>> names) just in case there's ever a need to implement one of those things >>> (this is very very cheap insurance). >> >> I propose to delete P_CID and recycle its place for P_PSETID. > > There are 2,147,483,630 different numbers you can choose from, if I > counted right -- that's over two billion. It's not that important to > be economical with reuse when there's a scary comment above it > exhorting you not to mess with the existing numbers... Also, P_PSETID > already appears to be assigned the number 15, so why would you want to > change that? > If I delete P_TASKID ... P_P_CPUID ones, P_SETID will be reordered (but we can force the number anyway). If I delete P_CID there is an inelegant hole. Naturally P_SETID -> P_CID can fill the gap. This is in theory ABI change, but no users could use in a useful approach previously. My intention isto g/c unused values and keep this clean and elegant (as this is still possible).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature