From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 921461F4B4 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 13:53:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A92A39450F4; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 13:53:51 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9A92A39450F4 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1601301231; bh=BNPaGzkzDZ9+R2DuvwK4VTlbCkomQ+t10cClA+98kQE=; h=References:In-Reply-To:Date:Subject:To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=PDxkgNetu3d963z9b26pEI9ZwBNFDxX1jMu3zCujsOF4NdukjXNrRvAqOIGq7W4SR 11Ap/a/dgsSQwwInFss3trXws5W8x072PRb6831vaf5bqFUISt+82j0cOi6vO/G4ch tF8fSkW0HIAB8jQ039h78RlzmX9bMshUBsiM9gnM= Received: from mail-io1-xd41.google.com (mail-io1-xd41.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d41]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2D4238618E2; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 13:53:47 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org D2D4238618E2 Received: by mail-io1-xd41.google.com with SMTP id m17so1196881ioo.1; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 06:53:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=BNPaGzkzDZ9+R2DuvwK4VTlbCkomQ+t10cClA+98kQE=; b=lyjJfFrdDV9h3qFWUrJwfYz58V6dcBqCT5Iw9+5riZ5h5K8+CoZvgnLxLi8PijgigB NUa6uLKocl3kG6amuRG17xSx2we/OxLvdo2pTZDrhbOz/GK7Kqv/GP7HvM+j4JsvVo1U u1QWJ+ZRMR9H9NS4djBFjSyK1u3UbBSjZUSf2H1+ApIuUQXZrqvk+g5lMvTzpp7SKDTJ EgSQHQ0XKzBC7mhSXWjt5R5dpZ/il2gGMfzkkFygGsx7Pl0rd2jE++285n0iRnhJLnYk YnvVfGpgYJ0Jl0wqFvZV+16gvRKwMsSb7oqZzfX7KgPfctMYEpRfTIlx6MVvUb/P4t5u 2UEg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531DNSRW2MeQ5BFxq38dUtLmtq1b0nkzmOe2GwD/gqntv3HwbvmH e+5a8Nqe+vlOeqB6zH8gQpc8c23cHEt+jiP9rPymqvZW X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJztaH7mmuCS3Kbf3VwdqY6Z4ExkSBzNqHnUeNuVJnuD6Ydga+ddcl4ifhCC6FC+kZoVexmdAGJKC7rXKBUuU0I= X-Received: by 2002:a5e:881a:: with SMTP id l26mr6842765ioj.51.1601301225916; Mon, 28 Sep 2020 06:53:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200918160709.949608-1-hjl.tools@gmail.com> <20200918160709.949608-3-hjl.tools@gmail.com> <87eemm6n37.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <87eemm6n37.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 06:53:09 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Set tunable value as well as min/max values To: Florian Weimer Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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: , From: "H.J. Lu via Libc-alpha" Reply-To: "H.J. Lu" Cc: Siddhesh Poyarekar , "H.J. Lu via Libc-alpha" Errors-To: libc-alpha-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Libc-alpha" On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 6:35 AM Florian Weimer wrote: > > * H. J. Lu via Libc-alpha: > > > Some tunable values and their minimum/maximum values must be determinted > > at run-time. Add TUNABLE_SET_ALL and TUNABLE_SET_ALL_FULL to update > > tunable value together with minimum and maximum values. __tunable_set_val > > is updated to set tunable value as well as min/max values. > > 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. Some x86 tunables ranges are dynamic. > Maybe Siddhesh can comment on that aspect? > > What is supposed to happen if you specify an out-of-range value? It should be rejected. Otherwise programs will crash. -- H.J.