From nobody Mon Dec 04 15:06:03 2023 X-Original-To: stable@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4SkRnZ2f8fz53RYl for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2023 15:06:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-stable-local@be-well.ilk.org) Received: from be-well.ilk.org (be-well.ilk.org [23.30.133.173]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4SkRnY4Wbtz4ptp for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2023 15:06:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-stable-local@be-well.ilk.org) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of freebsd-stable-local@be-well.ilk.org has no SPF policy when checking 23.30.133.173) smtp.mailfrom=freebsd-stable-local@be-well.ilk.org; dmarc=fail reason="No valid SPF, No valid DKIM" header.from=ilk.org (policy=none) Received: from lowell-Ubuntu.lan (lowell-Ubuntu.lan [172.30.250.95]) by be-well.ilk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 660D8400C6 for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2023 10:06:03 -0500 (EST) Received: by lowell-Ubuntu.lan (Postfix, from userid 1147) id 502D51080478; Mon, 4 Dec 2023 10:06:03 -0500 (EST) From: Lowell Gilbert To: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Errata Notice FreeBSD-EN-23:16.openzfs In-Reply-To: <20231204230246.f11fce2914500a99e094de0b@dec.sakura.ne.jp> (Tomoaki AOKI's message of "Mon, 4 Dec 2023 23:02:46 +0900") References: <20231201031737.DF0231B942@freefall.freebsd.org> <445y1eaxiz.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> <20231204230246.f11fce2914500a99e094de0b@dec.sakura.ne.jp> Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2023 10:06:03 -0500 Message-ID: <448r6a2ejo.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-stable List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-0.67 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.98)[-0.976]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.79)[0.795]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.59)[-0.587]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_NO_TLS_LAST(0.10)[]; DMARC_POLICY_SOFTFAIL(0.10)[ilk.org : No valid SPF, No valid DKIM,none]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[stable@freebsd.org]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; ASN(0.00)[asn:7922, ipnet:23.30.0.0/15, country:US]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[stable@freebsd.org]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4SkRnY4Wbtz4ptp X-Spamd-Bar: / Tomoaki AOKI writes: > On Mon, 04 Dec 2023 08:48:52 -0500 > Lowell Gilbert wrote: > >> Kurt Jaeger writes: >> >> > I had thought that the ZFS fix is a kernel fix so that the kernel >> > would also report -p1, but it does not. It might be because >> > zfs is a kernel module, so the kernel itself was not really patched, >> > but I might be wrong here. >> >> As far as I can see, that seems exactly right. > > As this kind of confusion caused by mismatch of patchlevel between > kernel and userland arises from time to time, now would be the time to > switch to keep patchlevel in sync between kernel and userland. > > This would force both kernel and userland to be built using the same > patchlevel, even if one of which is actually unchanged. > But maybe helpful to avoid confusion like this. I doubt that no approach would keep *someone* from being surprised, *some* time. Whether such a change would make it less common? Maybe, but I am definitely the last person you should ask. Be well. Lowell