Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 17:21:21 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@scsiguy.com>, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG>, Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@FreeBSD.ORG>, Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@unixdaemons.com>, Seigo Tanimura <tanimura@r.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp>, FreeBSD current users <current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Patch for critical_enter()/critical_exit() & interrupt assem Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1020307171254.23264D-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <200203072143.g27LhaL97112@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Warner Losh wrote: > In message <Pine.BSF.4.21.0203071334010.37321-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> Julian Elischer writes: > : > : > : On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Justin T. Gibbs wrote: > : > > : > Then do the right things so it will. > : > : Unfortunatly that has been proven to not work. > : > : after reverting the change and silently waiting for a week > : 1/ no person bothered to review it. > : 2/ people assumed the patch had gone away. > > Ummm, There are reviews in the archives that object to the API as it > relates to optimization and those objections haven't been sanely > answered with anything more constructive than "BS". The primary objections I've seen from Jake, and he posted them as part of the earlier thread prior to the commit, was that the API changes proposed by Matt don't make sense for the sparc64 implementation, uni-processor or multi-processor, and that while these changes might be appropriate for i386, he wanted to see the APIs set up in such a way that the differences in architectures were hidden in the MD code. This suggests working some more on the API before moving on, and my reading of earlier posts in the thread from John was that that was what he had in mind also. I don't pretend to understand all the issues here, but I think it's important to recognize that there have been several coherrent responses to the current patch that do need to be addressed. I think the preference I've seen from a number of developers is that the be addressed before the commit, rather than after. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Project robert@fledge.watson.org NAI Labs, Safeport Network Services To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1020307171254.23264D-100000>