--5CUMAwwhRxlRszMD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 09:43:04PM +0200, Elad Efrat wrote:
> Hi,
>=20
> I have a few changes that I'm working on that will require some process
> flags. Regardless of whether eventually I'll commit them or not, we
> reached the point where we have only one unused flag slot left in
> p_flag.
>=20
> At the moment it's 'int', so I'd like to bump it to uint64_t at least.
>=20
> Is this okay? is there anything that is expected to break? I guess
> sysctl because it uses int32_t, but anything else?

Another option would be to add a second flags (flags2) member. Older=20
arches will probably prefer this, and we also don't introduce new=20
alignment issues.

Take care,

Bill

--5CUMAwwhRxlRszMD
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFFIXBYWz+3JHUci9cRAqm3AJ9eeu56CoGovXKLmL1V49FHWeUH+ACdEUQP
S9qoWv1lT0ClyjG7H7Luos4=
=Nnhz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--5CUMAwwhRxlRszMD--