code review 6843045: syscall: regenerate z-files for openbsd/amd64

syscall: regenerate z-files for openbsd/amd64

Regenerate z-files for OpenBSD/amd64 on OpenBSD 5.2.

[jsing, 2012-11-13 14:43:34]

Hello golang-dev@googlegroups.com,

I'd like you to review this change to
https://go.googlecode.com/hg/

[bradfitz, 2012-11-13 14:55:19]

LGTM but curious,

Why do things like SO_JUMBO and SYS_RFORK go away from 5.1 to 5.2?  Do they
really get rid of those in a point release?

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 6:43 AM, <jsing@google.com> wrote:

> Reviewers: golang-dev_googlegroups.com,
>
> Message:
> Hello golang-dev@googlegroups.com,
>
> I'd like you to review this change to
> https://go.googlecode.com/hg/
>
>
> Description:
> syscall: regenerate z-files for openbsd/amd64
>
> Regenerate z-files for OpenBSD/amd64 on OpenBSD 5.2.
>
> Please review this at
http://codereview.appspot.com/**6843045/<http://codereview.appspot.com/6843045/>
>
> Affected files:
>   M src/pkg/syscall/zerrors_**openbsd_amd64.go
>   M src/pkg/syscall/zsysctl_**openbsd.go
>   M src/pkg/syscall/zsysnum_**openbsd_amd64.go
>   M src/pkg/syscall/ztypes_**openbsd_amd64.go
>
>
>

[mikio, 2012-11-13 15:36:31]

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Brad Fitzpatrick <bradfitz@golang.org> wrote:

> Why do things like SO_JUMBO

I believe that's the IPv6 jumbograms option. A few experimentals
exists in high-perf. computing world but not in enterprise so far.

[mikio, 2012-11-13 15:41:33]

LGTM

[jsing, 2012-11-13 16:06:46]

On 14 November 2012 01:55, Brad Fitzpatrick <bradfitz@golang.org> wrote:
> LGTM but curious,
>
> Why do things like SO_JUMBO and SYS_RFORK go away from 5.1 to 5.2?  Do they
> really get rid of those in a point release?

With OpenBSD there is not really such a thing as a "point" release -
the release cycle is every six months and in terms of significance,
the difference between 5.1 to 5.2 is basically the same as the
difference between 4.9 to 5.0. Usually backwards compatibility is
retained for a few releases (the official level of support is for the
last two stable releases).

Since you are curious, sys_rfork had been slated for removal since
sys__tfork replaced it. As an example of backwards compatibility,
there are currently syscall two entry points to sys__tfork - one that
is being retained for backwards compatibility (the one that Go
currently uses, which I'll fix soon) and the replacement that has a
different interface. Most of the other changes are similar deprecation
and associated clean up.

> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 6:43 AM, <jsing@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> Reviewers: golang-dev_googlegroups.com,
>>
>> Message:
>> Hello golang-dev@googlegroups.com,
>>
>> I'd like you to review this change to
>> https://go.googlecode.com/hg/
>>
>>
>> Description:
>> syscall: regenerate z-files for openbsd/amd64
>>
>> Regenerate z-files for OpenBSD/amd64 on OpenBSD 5.2.
>>
>> Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/6843045/
>>
>> Affected files:
>>   M src/pkg/syscall/zerrors_openbsd_amd64.go
>>   M src/pkg/syscall/zsysctl_openbsd.go
>>   M src/pkg/syscall/zsysnum_openbsd_amd64.go
>>   M src/pkg/syscall/ztypes_openbsd_amd64.go
>>
>>
>

[jsing, 2012-11-13 16:08:23]

On 14 November 2012 02:36, Mikio Hara <mikioh.mikioh@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Brad Fitzpatrick <bradfitz@golang.org>
wrote:
>
>> Why do things like SO_JUMBO
>
> I believe that's the IPv6 jumbograms option. A few experimentals
> exists in high-perf. computing world but not in enterprise so far.

These were from experimental "opportunistic" jumbogram support, which
has been removed -
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/net/route.h#rev1.28 and
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/net/route.h#rev1.76 if
you're interested.

[jsing, 2012-11-13 16:21:35]

*** Submitted as http://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=572254dde730 ***

syscall: regenerate z-files for openbsd/amd64

Regenerate z-files for OpenBSD/amd64 on OpenBSD 5.2.

R=golang-dev, bradfitz, mikioh.mikioh
CC=golang-dev
http://codereview.appspot.com/6843045

[bradfitz, 2012-11-13 16:26:35]

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Joel Sing <jsing@google.com> wrote:

> On 14 November 2012 01:55, Brad Fitzpatrick <bradfitz@golang.org> wrote:
> > LGTM but curious,
> >
> > Why do things like SO_JUMBO and SYS_RFORK go away from 5.1 to 5.2?  Do
> they
> > really get rid of those in a point release?
>
> With OpenBSD there is not really such a thing as a "point" release -
> the release cycle is every six months and in terms of significance,
> the difference between 5.1 to 5.2 is basically the same as the
> difference between 4.9 to 5.0. Usually backwards compatibility is
> retained for a few releases (the official level of support is for the
> last two stable releases).
>

I guess we'll need to decide what to do about adding openbsd to api/*.txt.
 Maybe skip the syscall package for openbsd.