Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:55:43 -0700 From: "Peter Wemm" <peter@wemm.org> To: "Robert Watson" <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, Jeff Roberson <jeff@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/amd64/amd64 machdep.c trap.c vm_machdep.c src/sys/amd64/conf DEFAULTS src/sys/amd64/linux32 linux32_sysvec.c src/sys/arm/arm trap.c src/sys/arm/conf AVILA src/sys/arm/xscale/i8134x crb_machdep.c src/sys/compat/freebsd32 ... Message-ID: <e7db6d980803120355s3e302bcbva03e3ad492006df3@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20080312102345.L29518@fledge.watson.org> References: <200803121012.m2CAC24p033661@repoman.freebsd.org> <20080312102345.L29518@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Jeff Roberson wrote: > > > Remove kernel support for M:N threading. > > > > While the KSE project was quite successful in bringing threading to > > FreeBSD, the M:N approach taken by the kse library was never developed > > to its full potential. Backwards compatibility will be provided via > > libmap.conf for dynamically linked binaries and static binaries will > > be broken. > > This will likely require us to grow a significantly more mature approach to > compat libraries, especially for 5.x where I seem to recall libthr was of > mixed productionness. Once these changes have settled, the right approach is > probably to bring up a 5.x chroot on an 8.x kernel and fault in problems. Neither libkse nor libthr were fully functional for the most part of 5.x's lifetime. The canonical bugfix (for amd64 and to a lesser extent, i386) was to use libmap to redirect everything to libc_r. It was required if you wanted to use things like mozilla / firefox / etc without losing your sanity. Maybe that changed in later 5.x, but IMHO the functionality / reliability bar wasn't that high. > While 5.x isn't widely hacked on currently, it is used pretty extensively in > our user base (a sample of Java binary downloads a few months ago, for > example, showed 5.x/i386 to be the most widely used platform for Java), and I > know I've had a lot of ... feedback ... about the fact that our upgrade path > from 5.x to 6.x has gotten less functional over time. Java is the one big exception. We have to care about that one. > Anyhow, once things settle a bit, let's see where we are. Yes, there are lots of options. We've needed to have a better plan for older library interfaces for a while. I recall a few instances where we had security issues that were preserved via the compat packages for too long, etc. Anyway.. Lets find and fix the problems as they turn up. -- 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 "If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would delete themselves upon execution." -- Robert Sewell
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?e7db6d980803120355s3e302bcbva03e3ad492006df3>