svn commit: r351729 - in head: lib/libc/gen lib/libc/sys sys/compat/freebsd32 sys/kern sys/sys

[Mateusz Guzik]

On 9/3/19, Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2019, 5:45 AM Brooks Davis <brooks at freebsd.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 07:35:05AM -0400, Shawn Webb wrote:
>> > Hey Mateusz,
>> >
>> > On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 04:16:31AM +0000, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
>> > > Author: mjg
>> > > Date: Tue Sep  3 04:16:30 2019
>> > > New Revision: 351729
>> > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/351729
>> > >
>> > > Log:
>> > >   Add sysctlbyname system call
>> > >
>> > >   Previously userspace would issue one syscall to resolve the sysctl
>> and then
>> > >   another one to actually use it. Do it all in one trip.
>> > >
>> > >   Fallback is provided in case newer libc happens to be running on an
>> older
>> > >   kernel.
>> > >
>> > >   Submitted by:     Pawel Biernacki
>> > >   Reported by:      kib, brooks
>> > >   Differential Revision:    https://reviews.freebsd.org/D17282
>> > >
>> > > Modified:
>> > ... snip ...
>> > >   head/sys/sys/param.h
>> >
>> > ... snip ...
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Modified: head/sys/sys/param.h
>> > >
>> ==============================================================================
>> > > --- head/sys/sys/param.h    Mon Sep  2 21:57:57 2019        (r351728)
>> > > +++ head/sys/sys/param.h    Tue Sep  3 04:16:30 2019        (r351729)
>> > > @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@
>> > >   *         in the range 5 to 9.
>> > >   */
>> > >  #undef __FreeBSD_version
>> > > -#define __FreeBSD_version 1300044  /* Master, propagated to newvers
>> > > */
>> > > +#define __FreeBSD_version 1300045  /* Master, propagated to newvers
>> > > */
>> >
>> > To an outsider, it seems that __FreeBSD_version tends to be bumped in
>> > a separate commit. Am I remembering that right?
>>
>> It should be bumped in the same commit, but people forget or the bump
>> they have in their review turns into a no-op because someone else does a
>> bump in the interim (the latter has bit me several times).
>>
>
> Often when that happens to me, I'll just piggyback off the prior bump by
> just documenting the version bump as also covering what I just did. Though
> there is some judgement too based on number of days and how bad the effects
> in the in between zone might be. It's always a fuzzy thing if you zoom in
> on it, though, due to after the fact bumps.
>

How do you run into this one? Your patch should fail on the file, then patch
itself exits with an error.

-- 
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik gmail.com>