Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 16:10:44 -0800 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: "K. Macy" <kmacy@freebsd.org> Cc: Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org>, "src-committers@freebsd.org" <src-committers@freebsd.org>, Jason Wolfe <nitroboost@gmail.com>, "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" <svn-src-head@freebsd.org>, Sean Bruno <sbruno@freebsd.org>, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Subject: Re: svn commit: r277213 - in head: share/man/man9 sys/kern sys/ofed/include/linux sys/sys Message-ID: <CAJ-VmomObs2gMFLCZzXPSu8w7JwommXZ_MZPfRKx3mmHTe3eyw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAHM0Q_M%2BKkiGOxMcFjZD-Sqxu6bzY_AvGbJHsadbFAgPvbM55Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <20150120075126.GA42409@kib.kiev.ua> <20150120211137.GY15484@FreeBSD.org> <54BED6FB.8060401@selasky.org> <54BEE62D.2060703@ignoranthack.me> <CAHM0Q_MDJN_8sTvTDXfqA7UtJVO3Y8S8%2BNRCs_=6Nj4dkTzjOA@mail.gmail.com> <54BEE8E6.3080009@ignoranthack.me> <CAHM0Q_N_53BM-6RvXu8UpjfDzQHEn5oXZo1Nn8RO0cuOUhe8tg@mail.gmail.com> <54BEEA7F.1070301@ignoranthack.me> <CAHM0Q_PtJ7JHFTiu9_dmi_Ce=rmu1j72z2OYQ2CD3%2BEbcoEGsA@mail.gmail.com> <54BEF154.3030606@ignoranthack.me> <20150121181512.GE15484@FreeBSD.org> <CAJ-VmokyKX0uCA1%2B3KjziJkokDOVBCpUdwHQcVaY=buwa%2BqfhQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHM0Q_NJDq41MtDAne0a-fnp%2BOg38=ypNKRidq5cAeL=nj-YDQ@mail.gmail.com> <B4F512FF-5AD8-4885-9ABF-CEAB54561F92@bsdimp.com> <CAHM0Q_M%2BKkiGOxMcFjZD-Sqxu6bzY_AvGbJHsadbFAgPvbM55Q@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 21 January 2015 at 16:07, K. Macy <kmacy@freebsd.org> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-VmomObs2gMFLCZzXPSu8w7JwommXZ_MZPfRKx3mmHTe3eyw>