Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 14:09:27 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Jeffrey Hsu <hsu@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet tcp_syncache.c Message-ID: <20031111140440.V16061@odysseus.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <200311111956.hABJuYoe011020@mta4.rcsntx.swbell.net> References: <200311111956.hABJuYoe011020@mta4.rcsntx.swbell.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Jeffrey Hsu wrote: > Asking nicely for a more verbose clarification of a commit message this > is too short is perfectly fine and reasonable. Demanding an immediate > backout without justification is an entirely different matter. It's > just plain bullying. > > Jeffrey Technically, your original change was correct, since syncache_respond turned out not to have complete locking... ... also technically, sam didn't back out your change, he switched the MPSAFEness to be dependent on the debug_mpsafenet flag, so that it would only be MPSAFE for those who took the risk... ... and Sam had some assertions and fixes in p4 which he was planning to commit to CVS, but hadn't gotten to yet... So, let's all just agree that things got a bit desynchronized and drop this, it's not worth our time to argue over a one line change. Mike "Silby" Silbersack
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031111140440.V16061>