Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 10:35:15 -0700 From: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG>, Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: savcore dump names? Message-ID: <20020504173515.4109D3811@overcee.wemm.org> In-Reply-To: <13738.1020418876@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> And for reasons I have yet to fathom, Peter suddenly drags a
> completely unrelated patch (MII) into the picture, and rather than
> do the sensible thing (ie: test the patch or reply to my email where
> I answered his questions) he goes "That makes me feel really warm
> and cozy" with absolutely no facts or technical backing.
>
> If Peter or anybody else has any concerns about the patch, then
> please SAY what these concerns are, or optionally: test the patch
> and see for yourself if your concerns are founded or unfounded.
My concerns are pretty simple. You're chopping stuff out of a particularly
hairy bit of timing sensitive device driver code, not being able to test it
on the hardware that needs it, and all this for no apparent reason other
than that you do not like (or do not understand) it. ie: we do not gain
anything by it except risking breakage when the code gets used by more than
a handful of people.
In the light of the savecore fiasco, I'm worried that you are going to
simply respond and and say "Not my problem" when all hell breaks loose in 6
to 12 months from now. When somebody upgrades their 4.x box to 5.0-REL and
their 'tl' card stops working because of your "simplification", will you
fix it? If you commit to that, then I'm no longer worried.
This is not quite the same thing as userconfig. I practically moved heaven
and earth to keep userconfig functional while there was no alternative. Now
that hints are functional we do have an alternative for the people that are
using -current (developers etc). Ironically, the thing that was needed to
"fix" userconfig was the setenv stuff, and now that we have it we could
bring userconfig back. Even more ironically, this support was all but
committed before somebody ELSE actually did kill it for good ("date: 2001/
11/05 21:46:35; author: phk"). On the plus side, unplugging userconfig
from life support was probably a good thing as it will force the development
of a more user-friendly thing in loader. One way or another, this *will*
be done by 5.0-R.
Cheers,
-Peter
--
Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com
"All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020504173515.4109D3811>