Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] 9pfs: include <linux/limits.h> for XATTR_SIZE_MAX

[Kamil Rytarowski]

On 31.07.2017 16:23, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Sun, 07/30 19:23, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 30 July 2017 at 17:51, Kamil Rytarowski <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> On 29.07.2017 21:34, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>> On 29 July 2017 at 14:50, Patrick Steinhardt <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 02:20:49PM -0300, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>>>>> This is likely to break on BSD, but now than patchew has a NetBSD job
>>>>>> you can trigger a build RESENDing this patch.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I just checked patchew, and there is FreeBSD job. How far are we from
>>> adding more BSDs?
>>
>> I now test OpenBSD and NetBSD as well in my pre-merge
>> test setup. Patchew could add them as well if desired.
>> (vm setup instructions at http://wiki.qemu.org/Hosts/BSD)
> 
> No objection to adding more BSDs to patchew as long as I can find a few more
> gigabytes RAM to run the VM (BTW I'm also thinking about converting long 
> running
> VMs to boot/shutdown on demand, to support more types of guests). But still 
> want
> to ask this: how likely it is for a patch to compile on one BSD flavor but 
> fail
> on the other?
> 

High probability.

These systems (FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD) diverged over 20 years ago and
are developed by different teams and for different use-cases.

We should assume that these systems are completely different POSIX-like
systems, with shared ancestors (AT&T UNIX -> BSD UNIX).

Thought, DragonflyBSD & FreeBSD are relatively similar, FreeBSD fixes
should work for DragonflyBSD in most cases.

Right now there are no other modern BSDs with a vibrant community,
everything else is retro-computing, remix with preconfigured desktop,
hobby, 1-man-show etc.

> Fam
>

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature