In D55390#1267013, @kib wrote:

The would it be the time to also change the macros itself to not pass 0 but the last arg?
(I do not have objections to either this patch or updated patch).

In D55345#1266746, @bms wrote:

Implementing source-address selection for IPv4 should be delegated to GenAI or JKH.

@jhb how do you want me/us to proceed here?

"FIB" is a term way older than "VRF". VRF started as a "vendor term" for a specific implementation.
FreeBSD had "multi-FIB" support (that is what we call it) long before VRF found its way into a common standards language (which still is only an exception there).

Thank you. Looks good to me. Also drm-kmod is happy again.

In D41705#1262064, @bms wrote:

If no one complains within the next 48 hours that I got the KERN_OPTS bits wrong, then I'll get things in.

@jhb Do you want to push your changes in? Or put your changes up for review? Or should I re-add the comments in ccp as you said, then and split the commit into two, and just get it in?

This is a simple comment. Anyone any comments on it? Otherwise it'll go in within 48 hours.

@imp any chances to see about this? Should I wait for you?

This is just moving a macro from one file to the other? Anyone? Otherwise it will go in within 48 hours.

Anyone time for the simple review?

Anyone any comments on the latest version?

In D55022#1261005, @imp wrote:

I didn't notice before, but all the variables starting with WITH could collide with future options. Why'd you use those named?

@jhb @imp Are the two bus attachment .if checks here with ${KERN_OPTS:..} as you were thinking/expect? If that is all right I am good wit this. You can just leave a comment. No need to accept.

Request for exp-run is here:

a universe with gcc15 restircted to amd64 behaves the same as the other gcc; LINT* and *SAN* kernels fail but GENERIC/MINIMAL/.. finished.

I would love to get this one in before Monday too. It is simple. In case anyone wants to review but currently does not have time, let me know and I'll wait even if not reviewed.

I would love to get this in before Monday if possible. In case anyone wants to review but does not have the time, please leave a comment and I'll wait even if not reviewed.

My historic understanding was that we would have all the pr_* options/check inside kern_jail.c and have accessor functions for them passing td or cred.
I do not know how this evolved over the years (and I do see prison_add_allow()) for other flags so adding #jail to the review list in case @jamie wants to comment on that.

sys/conf/std.nodebug is missing

Ok, I completed:

No longer needed. Upstream fixed their code to DTRT.

In D55088#1259109, @emaste wrote:

OK. The parens on (value) aren't needed though.

This still needs to pass a few universe builds with various compilers as indicated in email so don't just accept it yet ;-)

In D55029#1258032, @emaste wrote:

If we want to do this we should adjust them all.

OK, that could be a follow-up.