From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 19 07:11:48 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 890F216A4CE; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 07:11:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from cs.rice.edu (cs.rice.edu [128.42.1.30]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FC0C43D53; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 07:11:48 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from alc@cs.rice.edu) Received: from localhost (calypso.cs.rice.edu [128.42.1.127]) by cs.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E46914AA0F; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 02:11:47 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cs.rice.edu ([128.42.1.30]) by localhost (calypso.cs.rice.edu [128.42.1.127]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 23053-01-100; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 02:11:47 -0500 (CDT) Received: by cs.rice.edu (Postfix, from userid 19572) id 91A204AA0E; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 02:11:47 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 02:11:47 -0500 From: Alan Cox To: Scott Long Message-ID: <20040719071147.GS18577@cs.rice.edu> References: <200407190621.i6J6LRWJ019976@repoman.freebsd.org> <40FB718B.7080206@samsco.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40FB718B.7080206@samsco.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-20030616-p7 at cs.rice.edu cc: Brian Feldman cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/sys malloc.h src/sys/kern kern_malloc.c src/sys/vm vm_contig.c vm_page.h X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 07:11:48 -0000 On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 01:00:27AM -0600, Scott Long wrote: > This is a pretty darn big change to something that is so vital to so > many drivers (not including busdma, which means that this touches nearly > every driver). Who reviewed this? Was it discussed on a public mailing > list? What kind of testing was done for it? If you can't answer these > questions then I'm not terribly thrilled. > I reviewed an earlier version of this and gave Brian some feedback. It is important to note that he added the new implementation side-by-side with the old. By default, the old implementation is still used. So, I wouldn't be too concerned. Alan