Publish rebased version. I had it rebased but forgot to update the diff here...

I am actually not sure why we need to show default values in the SYNOPSIS section. As is explained in SYSCTL VARIABLES, sometimes a value of 0 has special meaning. I am actually not sure of the advantage of including those in the SYNOPSIS in the first place, since we enumerate right below almost. But if we are to list them, I do not think we should provide values as well.

In the first paragraph it is not immediately clear (to me at least) what this variable actually does. I especially get quite confused with what "newly started child process" means. Does it refer to the command defined in -c cmd? Or is it something else? I think the wording needs some improvement there.

I think in this case we could still commit this for correctness.

In D51293#1171363, @imp wrote:

I think this is good.

This is actually a question patch. I'm not sure if this is really a typo or not.

Regarding @jrtc27's recommendation to let audio/virtual_oss install the devd script to /usr/local/etc, since virtual_oss will be ported to base soon, we can leave it as is.

I haven't checked mandoc -Tlint, but make sure there are no errors there as well.

I accidentally committed without git-arc-stage... apologies.

Bump.

Bump.

Bump. Please let me know in case you test.

Address comments.

LGTM. Shouldn't you also the bump the date?

@adrian Bump.

Bump (also for the other MIDI patches).

• A few lines can be merged and still not exceed 80 columns.
• I feel like the underlying message in the DESCRIPTION and IMPLEMENTATION NOTES paragraphs is that FBT should be used with caution, and that's it particularly hard to use. Maybe we should improve the wording on that.

LGTM with some minor nitpicks.

Radio silence in the mailing lists. I take this as we are good to go. :-)

I will take care of MFC'ing this to stable/14. Thanks.

My own Radeon HDMI worked fine even before the patch, but with the patch it still works.

The right diff's path seems messed up ("i/sys/..."), could you please fix that first?

In D50690#1157857, @adrian wrote:

I assume it just works fine? :-)

What is the rationale behind this change?

In D50605#1155981, @markj wrote:

Does this removal warrant some post on -current or so to make sure no one's using it?

In D50605#1155981, @markj wrote:

Does this removal warrant some post on -current or so to make sure no one's using it?

Remove all dead printfs from this file.