Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 12:42:51 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>, stable@freebsd.org, jhb@freebsd.org Subject: Re: LOCK_PROFILING in -stable Message-ID: <20071021124157.K70919@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20071020192717.GX31826@elvis.mu.org> References: <20071019232846.GQ31826@elvis.mu.org> <4719B06F.3000103@FreeBSD.org> <20071020181811.W70919@fledge.watson.org> <20071020192717.GX31826@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Alfred Perlstein wrote: >> This is my feeling also -- I would consider ABI breakage a show stopper for >> 6.x, but feel otherwise that the new code is much more mature and capable >> and would be quite beneficial to people building appliances and related >> products on 6.x. You might check with Attilio about whether there are any >> remaining outstanding issues that need to be resolved first, and make sure >> to send a heads up out on stable@ and put a note in UPDATING that the >> option and details have changed. > > I still get confused as to the meaning of this... > > It only breaks ABI when it's enabled. > > I think that is OK, right? As we're eliminating MUTEX_PROFILING and replacing it with LOCK_PROFILING, I think it is OK that the ABI for one differs from the other as long as the base kernel ABI remains static. I.e., this seems OK to me also. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071021124157.K70919>