Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 19:03:39 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_thread.c src/sys/security/audit audit.c audit.h src/sys/sys proc.h Message-ID: <20060202190229.E38507@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <200602021345.38364.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <200602020037.k120b6iM014699@repoman.freebsd.org> <200602021345.38364.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, John Baldwin wrote: > Have you considered putting td_ar in the logical place in HEAD and only > doing the ABI-friendly "hack" for RELENG_6? Maybe you could do the ABI > thing in HEAD to make the MFC easier and then update HEAD after the MFC to > be more intuitive? Yes -- I was actually going to commit it that way, but changed my mind at the last minute. My reasoning was that if we plan to MFC the changes, it is better to MFC them having tested them in the form they will be MFC'd. Once they are MFC'd to RELENG_6, I will move the field back to the zero'd section and remove the thread constructor hook. Robert N M Watson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060202190229.E38507>