Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 00:36:45 -0400 (EDT) From: "Alok K. Dhir" <adhir@forumone.com> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SMP changes and breaking kld object module compatibility Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0004240035180.86796-100000@orion.forumone.com> In-Reply-To: <200004232031.NAA64273@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Totally off topic question that I've wondered for some time now - what does MFC stand for? Thanks for humoring my ignorance, and thanks for all your hard work on FreeBSD... :) On Sun, 23 Apr 2000, Matthew Dillon wrote: > Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 13:31:34 -0700 (PDT) > From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> > To: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> > Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG > Subject: Re: SMP changes and breaking kld object module compatibility > > > : > :On Sun, 23 Apr 2000, Matthew Dillon wrote: > : > :> :In that case I have a strong objection to the SMP patchset being > :> :merged to 4.0. I have kernel modules in object format only that > :> :are working now, which this would break :-(. > :> : > :> :Rod Grimes - KD7CAX @ CN85sl - (RWG25) > :> : rgrimes@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net > :> > :> This is a legitimate topic for discussion. > :> > :> In general I agree with the concept but I think .0 releases have to > :> have a bit more flexibility, and that 4.0 in particular (due to the > :> rules change made for the BSDI merger) has to be even more flexible. > :> We should be allowed to break kernel module loader compatibility > :> in between a .0 and a .1 release if it is deemed necessary, but that > :> it should be avoided (as much as possible) after the .1 release. > : > :Rather than break the FreeBSD4 modules over which you have no control, > :perhaps your arguments should be used to accelerate the 5.0 release > :and make 4.x a short lived branch. > > I don't think this is possible. 4.0 is the most stable release we've > ever had, and I am confident that the 4.x series of releases will be > the best in FreeBSD's history probably until 5.1 or 5.2. > > 5.x is going to be seriously torn up. Maybe not as bad as people thought, > but still seriously torn up. It's already being torn up. I don't think > there is any chance of making 4.x a short-lived branch nor do I think > we want to. We should bask in the light of finallly having a good stable, > high performance set of 4.x releases. > > What we have is a war between the customer's need for stability, > other customer's need for speed, and the realities that developers > face in not wanting to have to rewrite patches in order to MFC them, > and wanting to have the opportunity to MFC improvements and bug fixes > in the first place. The SMP patch falls somewhere in the middle, and > I am aiming it towards the MFC side to make #3 easier. > > -Matt > Matthew Dillon > <dillon@backplane.com> > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0004240035180.86796-100000>