From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bisque.elm.relay.mailchannels.net (bisque.elm.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.212.18]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 969AD398B899 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 17:30:49 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 969AD398B899 X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|siddhesh@gotplt.org Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6970C40145D; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 17:30:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a57.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-9-93.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.9.93]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id DAE79401D83; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 17:30:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|siddhesh@gotplt.org Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a57.g.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.18.10); Mon, 28 Sep 2020 17:30:48 +0000 X-MC-Relay: Neutral X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|siddhesh@gotplt.org X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost X-Cellar-Stupid: 7bf495fc382ed7b6_1601314248188_207714313 X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1601314248188:842729765 X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1601314248188 Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a57.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a57.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FE36802E1; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 10:30:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.97] (unknown [123.252.202.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: siddhesh@gotplt.org) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a57.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AAFFE8034A; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 10:30:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Set tunable value as well as min/max values To: Florian Weimer , "H.J. Lu via Libc-alpha" References: <20200918160709.949608-1-hjl.tools@gmail.com> <20200918160709.949608-3-hjl.tools@gmail.com> <87eemm6n37.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a57 From: Siddhesh Poyarekar Autocrypt: addr=siddhesh@sourceware.org; keydata= mQENBFMAZNMBCACeatEKl6YY9iEVxzS64bPbvJsA1mLE2XFWmKXyYzm58dFqPMa0OQQTKCxj FCOrc+LD2KtmypttcahKnk5Lk1lNU/lV2hCuR7jJ37sL+/TFQuMMgsLPED6XU4/AYK3VUJvg GYLBnMVfpAGYLB5rnPvhFNx0r2KItO/CfiSEyD4g1Wu26SUAXGOp5hbSyBRGhju+8YJlhHBB jn3vZfw7IpwAWDVjK0crqMhGDXoZwK+ADUFY5NERAkT3Lb7d11F6+W4558WQZCYIWa3rZ62d 986OE7+7xKmJUcLLWvlv5spgUmvotZ4DMzaKba+waY5ygXdGIpm5seVIEUCTaBIe6QVLABEB AAG0RVNpZGRoZXNoIFBveWFyZWthciAoaHR0cHM6Ly9zb3VyY2V3YXJlLm9yZykgPHNpZGRo ZXNoQHNvdXJjZXdhcmUub3JnPokBOAQTAQIAIgUCV7TK9wIbAwYLCQgHAwIGFQgCCQoLBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQecQ9+/HPIYenaAf+PWhZtNrSQooFzuza1kYO3rI3UE+uoPPy2GGtjt6B 3n+sgAkprW3SVqW2eWkXkZXnWHLCNVlbS4FBznIa7KXilTuilgAOXBTA40YTD9AK4cci+Cg6 s1PQB6aN7fW2ARijXx/Q392tK1ZJ5CAfTchDTwCaWyTnazQ9Ew1l4cjhyxrBQulrhDLULnX0 ijDoShaskjdMWUFCpW9dZ9jE+O/YKpcO6P1Dw8tYA7bLBvsxvQw+9l5Kt5W887YTP3u5XXAf HTEaFS5fXtV2S6Dny/0QFf8/VMR3s0Y42A1evRD8cyrII/iHdwM5mPV3kqlHg1l9e8+gEVdJ oeLhnjxK4hJjwrkBDQRTAGTTAQgAoQtIhKUn2vPe1IE82SnKrAg+fj/9kG4Q0lB8hYhZgz2v vawFEdmCKKWw3sruDoRru8tRWC/n5YicTg9YVBqpRJsy5tOOyGdogAh5JTSuyXBFGq7YH0eZ LyZqsH5Rh1D4yw9UQiesHy6ugV/wmHuH7Y6qzYwpQyxrKgXJCRW3CHccj8AxOSYrqK6fcCKQ 4r4n1YtDHZCp/58uNjn9kiNujBt3wYrcHiHiRQ9t5QjlM2DrFwpXLFU8zLwdrN9oPCVQd+HT srRQVa1oW7D2/e2VqJ45MsfQPRwFfJhMCqCzsLrpzK3HD5Cvr/64drwwxEQNDBMQTDCJyTeH SH68iEKxXQARAQABiQEfBBgBAgAJAhsMBQJU6rPfAAoJEHnEPfvxzyGH9TMH/RDXegv9pLyS b2xc5rwzWuhDr01SmqkwQ4YFY7mdorzBnZAqHgPTkN81rvJPkWA8sj5riR06BZtbZ+IT/Axg 4yK+OgW9452XM+mx7Dqfarn9y+imymuIIYlajNOTC/V2/2B9MoHt0Mm34gJ1puntqiG82LnF 5mAzgbEKI7Wt+vQmfs0BHcvm2lCxUPh4NNr2ODSqr8SIX64tAfzYPpuzG1L9et7tv+xMoreM Tqy2G6LrjDsXdfkzWrCTxcKyoI0DVnZz7NaQsYfhl4H9GvFqm7QfT9MCEEG1sOjrrkZpFvc1 IrMbislKNdIRBziudr9jv+zdz24HTKN3JdfTyacfNU4= Message-ID: Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 23:00:28 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87eemm6n37.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US X-VR-OUT-STATUS: OK X-VR-OUT-SCORE: -100 X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrvdeigdelvdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvpdfftffgtefojffquffvnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgfgsehtkeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefuihguughhvghshhcurfhohigrrhgvkhgrrhcuoehsihguughhvghshhesshhouhhrtggvfigrrhgvrdhorhhgqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeeiteefffefvdduvdeljeffhedtteekudeiieehjeekffeigeeuffefleekjeekvdenucfkphepuddvfedrvdehvddrvddtvddrudejvdenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhhouggvpehsmhhtphdphhgvlhhopegludelvddrudeikedruddrleejngdpihhnvghtpeduvdefrddvhedvrddvtddvrddujedvpdhrvghtuhhrnhdqphgrthhhpefuihguughhvghshhcurfhohigrrhgvkhgrrhcuoehsihguughhvghshhesshhouhhrtggvfigrrhgvrdhorhhgqedpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehsihguughhvghshhesshhouhhrtggvfigrrhgvrdhorhhgpdhnrhgtphhtthhopehffigvihhmvghrsehrvgguhhgrthdrtghomh Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL, KAM_DMARC_NONE, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NEUTRAL, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 17:30:51 -0000 On 28/09/20 19:05, Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha wrote: > I'm not sure if this change is philosophically correct as far as the > tunables framework is concerned. I had thought the limits should be > something static, so that they are consistent across systems. It seems like a good idea to support dynamic limits if they will always be more restrictive than the most restrictive static limit one could come up with for the tunable. I didn't exclude dynamic limits from a design perspective; it's just that the tunables implemented at that time didn't need them. There is a case to always have static bounds (at the minimum to ensure that values don't overflow the underlying types) but that shouldn't preclude more restrictive dynamic limits IMO. Bikeshed: maybe the macro should be called TUNABLE_SET_WITH_BOUNDS() instead of TUNABLE_SET_ALL. Siddhesh