Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:44:27 -0500 From: Richard Coleman <rcoleman@criticalmagic.com> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> Cc: Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr> Subject: Re: MFC wishlist Message-ID: <41E553EB.10809@criticalmagic.com> In-Reply-To: <20050112164022.GD28786@odin.ac.hmc.edu> References: <41DF253C.5040705@fer.hr> <20050108005540.GB93568@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20050108030707.GA3656@frontfree.net> <20050108034424.GA94365@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <41E54C51.4000300@fer.hr> <20050112164022.GD28786@odin.ac.hmc.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brooks Davis wrote: >>>>>> It's been a while now and (judging from this list at >>>>>> least), people are not complaining about ULE, so maybe >>>>>> (with re@ approval) the fix & supporting infrastructure >>>>>> could be brought to RELENG_5? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That's not a good idea. I can lock up ULE+PREEMPTION on >> >>>> This is observed in pre-5.3RELEASE CURRENT, but I thought Jeff >>>> has >> >>> I'm talking about 6-CURRENT. My last kernel/world build is >> >> Are there plans for assigning more priority/resources on solving >> this? Maybe mark it as show-stopper for 5.4? (it's currently not >> even on the http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.4R/todo.html list) > > > No, because the project has no ability to "assign > priority/resources". If someone who has is intrested and capable time > to work on it, does so in time, then it may be done, if not, it > won't. > > -- Brooks Should we take this to mean that none of the developers are interested in ULE any more? That's the general feeling I get these days. Just curious. Richard Coleman rcoleman@criticalmagic.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41E553EB.10809>