From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 21 14:11:13 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AFB716A421; Sun, 21 Oct 2007 14:11:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [209.31.154.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31AFB13C4B6; Sun, 21 Oct 2007 14:09:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [209.31.154.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B211476E0; Sun, 21 Oct 2007 07:42:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 12:42:51 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Alfred Perlstein In-Reply-To: <20071020192717.GX31826@elvis.mu.org> Message-ID: <20071021124157.K70919@fledge.watson.org> References: <20071019232846.GQ31826@elvis.mu.org> <4719B06F.3000103@FreeBSD.org> <20071020181811.W70919@fledge.watson.org> <20071020192717.GX31826@elvis.mu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: Kris Kennaway , stable@freebsd.org, jhb@freebsd.org Subject: Re: LOCK_PROFILING in -stable X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 14:11:13 -0000 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