From owner-freebsd-current Mon Nov 13 21:31:21 1995 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id VAA26777 for current-outgoing; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 21:31:21 -0800 Received: from Root.COM (implode.Root.COM [198.145.90.17]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id VAA26768 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 21:31:12 -0800 Received: from corbin.Root.COM (corbin [198.145.90.50]) by Root.COM (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id VAA27689; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 21:31:10 -0800 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by corbin.Root.COM (8.6.12/8.6.5) with SMTP id VAA04287; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 21:25:39 -0800 Message-Id: <199511140525.VAA04287@corbin.Root.COM> To: Charles Henrich cc: nate@rocky.sri.mt.net (Nate Williams), freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ISP state their FreeBSD concerns In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 13 Nov 95 20:19:11 EST." <199511140119.UAA00359@crh.cl.msu.edu> From: David Greenman Reply-To: davidg@Root.COM Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 21:25:38 -0800 Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk >> There are only so many hours in a day, and those 24 were spent making >> 2.1 as good as it could get. If this means that the system still has a >> 'feature' of pausing under certain conditions I don't mind it as much as >> rebooting and/or panicing under more common scenarios. > >I tend to agree with that, however if Im not mistaken (I could be, its been >awhile) Matt provided source patches at the time that fixed the problems, would >it have been that difficult to review the patches and apply them? My memory is fuzzy on this, but my recollection is that people tried them and they didn't solve the problem. >I agree that this cant go into 2.1 now, I'm just hoping it gets looked at >before 2.2 I think the problems are fairly well understood and the solutions are complex. We will be working on this issue for 2.2. -DG