[PATCH 2/4] Set tunable value as well as min/max values

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 28/09/20 19:05, Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha wrote:
> I'm not sure if this change is philosophically correct as far as the
> tunables framework is concerned.  I had thought the limits should be
> something static, so that they are consistent across systems.

It seems like a good idea to support dynamic limits if they will always
be more restrictive than the most restrictive static limit one could
come up with for the tunable.  I didn't exclude dynamic limits from a
design perspective; it's just that the tunables implemented at that time
didn't need them.

There is a case to always have static bounds (at the minimum to ensure
that values don't overflow the underlying types) but that shouldn't
preclude more restrictive dynamic limits IMO.

Bikeshed: maybe the macro should be called TUNABLE_SET_WITH_BOUNDS()
instead of TUNABLE_SET_ALL.

Siddhesh