Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:44:52 +0100 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/alpha/alpha mem.c promcons.c src/sys/alpha/tlsb zs_tlsb.c src/sys/amd64/amd64 mem.c src/sys/cam cam_xpt.c src/sys/cam/scsi scsi_ch.c scsi_pass.c scsi_pt.c s Message-ID: <8758.1077551092@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:45:42 EST." <200402230945.42440.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200402230945.42440.jhb@FreeBSD.org>, John Baldwin writes: >On Saturday 21 February 2004 06:13 pm, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> In message <20040221161339.X52892@pooker.samsco.home>, Scott Long writes: >> >> A grace period is not possible, that is why I have been so vocal >> >> with my heads-up messages to current for the last two weeks. >> > >> >What are the technical reasons for a grace period not being possible? >> >> The signflip on the GIANT flag. > >Which was arguably premature given the vast number of NEEDGIANT vs. NOGIANT >case. The MPSAFE flag for interrupts hasn't been flipped yet either for that >reason. I thought the idea was to try to get the API's set up correctly before the RELENG_5 branch so that we do not make MFC'ing impossible a few months after the branchpoing like it happened for 3.x ? At least that was part of my motivation for flipping the flag. Another part is psychological: I think we need to mark the spots that need work done rather than put congratulatory notices in dmesg for the little headway we've done. And for both of these reasons I would advocate that MPSAFE gets flipped before the branch as well. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8758.1077551092>