From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 26 07:24:04 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47BF916A4CE; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 07:24:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (CPE0050040655c8-CM00111ae02aac.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [69.194.102.143]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 196B943D3F; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 07:24:04 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6B9AE52FEB; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:24:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:24:47 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway To: Miguel Mendez Message-ID: <20041026072447.GA47940@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <417DB5E1.7000308@freebsd.org> <20041026085627.008f8f7e.flynn@energyhq.es.eu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041026085627.008f8f7e.flynn@energyhq.es.eu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: Scott Long Subject: Re: HEADS UP: ULE off in 5.3 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 07:24:04 -0000 --SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 08:56:27AM +0200, Miguel Mendez wrote: > On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:26:41 -0600 > Scott Long wrote: >=20 > > A lot of poeple have noted recently that a lot of bug reports are > > coming in with strange symptoms, and only after a lot of detective > > work does it turn out that the submitter is using the ULE scheduler. >=20 > What are the short term plans for ULE? I understand turning it off for > RELENG_5, so I take it will be tested in HEAD? ULE has many nice > features and it would be a shame that it wasn't tested well enough so > that bugs can eventually be fixed. At this point further testing isn't necessary or useful, since it's *known* to have several serious bugs. What's needed at this point is someone who can take the code in hand, fix those problems, and maintain the code on an ongoing basis. If that happens, we could think about turning it back on by default. Kris --SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBffu/Wry0BWjoQKURAhkPAJ4wvQoO7D0OyGdlibIT1+ROaQE5AACfT3Zr U7/p0GnpCztUaumoKwpLUd0= =SLFk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s--