Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 15:41:33 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> To: davidg@Root.COM Cc: CVS-commiters@freefall.cdrom.com, cvs-sys@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/isa syscons.c Message-ID: <199508082241.PAA05313@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> In-Reply-To: <199508082129.OAA02174@corbin.Root.COM> from "David Greenman" at Aug 8, 95 02:29:13 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > >> > >> > Actually it isn't really OK to simply substitute M_NOWAIT with M_WAITOK. > >> > If one of the malloc()s in scioctl() sleeps, then another process may > >> > run and use the half-allocated resources. If one of the malloc()s in in > >> > scioctl() or scopen() sleeps, then another process may run and repeat the > >> > ioctl and (at best) allocate the resources twice. > >> > >> Argh. Perhaps I was too hasty. If John decides to rearchitect this, > >> I'll pull it out of 2.1 > > > >We really should let bits sit in -current for a week or two before pulling > >them into the 2.1 branch, per David's mail on this subject about how to get > >stuff into the branch, I though that was the plan. This allows time for > >these types of problems to surface so we don't have to go back things out > >of the -stable branch. > > I've generally been doing this, with a few exceptions for extremely well > understood changes...but even those usually get a few days of testing in > -current. > Generally, assume that I'm responsible for managing what contributions make > it into the 2.1 branch. I spend a large amount of time evaluating and testing > things before bringing them in, and short circuiting this procedure only > results in the reduced quality of the product. Agreed. -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com Accurate Automation Company Reliable computers for FreeBSD
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199508082241.PAA05313>