Why is TUNABLE_INT discouraged?

[Dag-Erling Smørgrav]

Ivan Voras <ivoras at freebsd.org> writes:
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des at des.no> writes:
> > Not sure what you mean.  The original issue was that someone had used
> > TUNABLE_INT() for something that was actually a memory address.  I
> > changed it to TUNABLE_ULONG().  Of course, if your tunable is a boolean
> > value or something like maxprocs, an int is fine - but so is a long.
> Semantically valid but using TUNABLE_INT to hold pointers is a
> developer bug, not the fault of the API, and there's nothing wrong
> with "int" as a data type in this context.

That's the point.  There was no TUNABLE_ULONG() at the time.  I added it
to fix the bug.

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des at des.no