From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 22 00:10:45 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 957C85E3; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 00:10:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-x236.google.com (mail-ig0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E4F0649; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 00:10:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ig0-f182.google.com with SMTP id r10so3802002igi.3; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 16:10:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=K/kzEMreSDOBwM0WzGgFAfuFbVTfwTC8BJekt/tkpYc=; b=STNefD+hDhoOh8hvxcfBq1PycvKj9AkwkUCLwb3hkdGzNF7nD8JIiatw/GZ7iq5DSm sgKoYfH9aJLhrdSzKAgimAu7AGqV/rsurkwgl0PICdi+DQqBMzCFSRoMTbflz/a9CaTD gCV05d+ZZv2cAfh628eu/lEvR+awfKuMeP3BVSOs7Q1uLyriafG4zVekaXpb76u7j2cP sMwAJ5zRtuksPtg0389c9dNy61qWB/QksEyjN3mOjz8qU7fEiZycXTT4hRXkZG+xaQ/1 yggkeS+B53rhEsiePjpmZaBMqeZdR9ljfGRMVApB0+xqJNBp141O2Sce73dq42NsrU39 zssA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.93.70 with SMTP id cs6mr8352863igb.6.1421885444790; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 16:10:44 -0800 (PST) Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com Received: by 10.36.78.14 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 16:10:44 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20150120075126.GA42409@kib.kiev.ua> <20150120211137.GY15484@FreeBSD.org> <54BED6FB.8060401@selasky.org> <54BEE62D.2060703@ignoranthack.me> <54BEE8E6.3080009@ignoranthack.me> <54BEEA7F.1070301@ignoranthack.me> <54BEF154.3030606@ignoranthack.me> <20150121181512.GE15484@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 16:10:44 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 7huVFJe-f74X7tadH_R4yALEr8k Message-ID: Subject: Re: svn commit: r277213 - in head: share/man/man9 sys/kern sys/ofed/include/linux sys/sys From: Adrian Chadd To: "K. Macy" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 00:21:28 +0000 Cc: Hans Petter Selasky , "src-committers@freebsd.org" , Jason Wolfe , "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" , "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" , Sean Bruno , Gleb Smirnoff , Konstantin Belousov , Warner Losh X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 00:10:45 -0000 On 21 January 2015 at 16:07, K. Macy wrote: >>> HPS: Your change failed to meet these guidelines. Some of us are upset >>> because these guidelines are fairly fundamental for the on-going >>> viability of FreeBSD. Due to linguistic / time zone / cultural >>> differences these expectations have not been adequately communicated >>> to you. You are not in the USB sandbox where others need for your >>> support outweighs the inconvenience of random breakage. >>> >>> It sounds like you are making progress towards updating the concerns >>> that have been voiced. If kib's observations are in fact comprehensive >>> then adding a callout_init_cpu function and updating all clients so >>> that their callouts continue to be scheduled on a CPU other than the >>> BSP will suffice and we can all move on. >> >> Is there some reason that we can=E2=80=99t back things out, break things= down into >> smaller pieces and have everything pass through phabric with a wide >> ranging review? Given the fundamental nature of these changes, they >> really need better review and doing it after the fact seems to be to be >> too risky. I=E2=80=99m not debating that this =E2=80=9Cfixes=E2=80=9D so= me issues, but given the >> performance regression, it sure seems like we may need a different >> solution to be implemented and hashing that out in a branch might be >> the best approach. > > Thank you. A more incremental approach would be appreciated by many of > us. To avoid the bystander effect we can permit explicit timeouts for > review-to-commit (72 hours?) so that we don't collectively end up > sandbagging him. I'm +1 for this. -a