Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:46:49 -0800 From: Qing Li <qingli@freebsd.org> To: obrien@freebsd.org Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r204902 - in head/sys: net netinet Message-ID: <9ace436c1003100946s2e8f5f1cx1adee809c25ea92d@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20100310160858.GC58634@dragon.NUXI.org> References: <201003090111.o291Bj79062503@svn.freebsd.org> <20100310152339.GA57873@dragon.NUXI.org> <201003101050.46696.jhb@freebsd.org> <20100310160858.GC58634@dragon.NUXI.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I looked at it, and at the diff of his original commit. =A0The changes we= re > large enough that I don't want to assume his patch takes care of all the > issues given that patch hasn't been committed verbatim. > The change itself is not a huge change but if you disagree, then please be specific. The current mechanism and code is broken according to the original design intention. I have a habit of not committing things or quick finger until everyone had a chance to test the patch, although I have done unit testings myself. When you say "... made the kernel toxic" and "...I don't want to assume ...", well, agai= n, be specific instead about what you mean and give me details. The other reason I decided to postpone is because I wanted to spend more time with the PPP driver. Every other PPP interface types (if_tun, if_ng etc.) updates the if_link_state variable except PPP. > > We also have reports of the patch not working in freebsd-current@. > I have seen that report but it lacks detail. I have asked for more information and will investigate further as soon as it becomes available. -- Qing
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9ace436c1003100946s2e8f5f1cx1adee809c25ea92d>