Re: git: a85dcd4ac4b0 - main - netlink: restrict default userland switch to netlink to i386/amd64.

From: Warner Losh <imp_at_bsdimp.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2023 17:08:38 UTC 
On Sun, Mar 26, 2023, 6:45 PM Jessica Clarke <jrtc27@freebsd.org> wrote:

> On 26 Mar 2023, at 17:17, Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 at 07:07, Alexander V. Chernikov
> > <melifaro@freebsd.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> The branch main has been updated by melifaro:
> >>
> >> URL:
> https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/src/commit/?id=a85dcd4ac4b0612b63b5a71eeaaa707a09ae0003
> >>
> >> commit a85dcd4ac4b0612b63b5a71eeaaa707a09ae0003
> >> Author:     Alexander V. Chernikov <melifaro@FreeBSD.org>
> >> AuthorDate: 2023-03-26 11:05:21 +0000
> >> Commit:     Alexander V. Chernikov <melifaro@FreeBSD.org>
> >> CommitDate: 2023-03-26 11:06:53 +0000
> >>
> >>    netlink: restrict default userland switch to netlink to i386/amd64.
> >
> > We should keep default options the same for all Tier-1 architectures,
> > so amd64 and arm64 should be in sync.
>
> But also, what’s the technical justification for this change? There
> should not be gratuitous differences between architectures like this,
> only when there is a reason something shouldn’t be enabled. Why should
> x86 (and possibly arm64) get netlink, but not arm/powerpc/riscv? We
> have very few machine-dependent defaults in src.opts.mk. If there is no
> such justification then please revert this in its entirety, and if
> there is such a justification it belongs in a comment above the if.
>

So if it's a matter of testing, enable it everywhere. We'll get testing. If
it's something known to be bad on say riscv64 we should have a bug and
reference it in src.opts.mk to document why. If it's just a conservative
approach to a roll out, then I'd suggest being less conservative.

Warner

>