Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 11:47:08 -0400 From: Brian Fundakowski Feldman <green@freebsd.org> To: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> Cc: Oliver Lehmann <oliver@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/net if.c Message-ID: <20040924154708.GI959@green.homeunix.org> In-Reply-To: <20040924091131.P39925@pooker.samsco.org> References: <200409221253.i8MCrR4K036310@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040924145847.29d8f597.oliver@FreeBSD.org> <20040924140756.GG959@green.homeunix.org> <20040924081830.K39925@pooker.samsco.org> <20040924145126.GH959@green.homeunix.org> <20040924091131.P39925@pooker.samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 09:16:35AM -0600, Scott Long wrote: > On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 08:19:20AM -0600, Scott Long wrote: > > > On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 02:58:47PM +0200, Oliver Lehmann wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > Brian Feldman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Revision Changes Path > > > > > > 1.209 +1 -0 src/sys/net/if.c > > > > > > > > > > Are there plans for MFCing 208 and 209? > > > > > > > > There are supposed to be, because it's listed as one of the 5.3-RELEASE > > > > blockers. However, I don't think the 5.3-RELEASE blockers are actually > > > > going to block anything. > > > > > > > > > > Why do you say that? Are you going to MFC these other versions, or just > > > wait and then complain that we released known bad code? > > > > I am not MFCing it because it is not my change. Here are the list of TODO > > items from the "show stopper" and "required features" sections that I do not > > believe will be done: > > * PREEMPTION-related hangs involving threads > > This is mostly solved, and Julian is just tracking down some edge cases > that people have reported. I'm not sure if we are going to turn on > PREEMPTION for 5.3, though. Every time it "appears" to be fixed, I can't get any kind of stability with SMP, PREEMPTION, and SCHED_ULE; I'm certainly willing to try it each time it looks to be fixed. > > > * Reports of UFS2 "large disk" problems > > I guess you haven't been paying attention to all of the good work that > Pawel is doing here. I also have fixes in my queue for growfs. Just based on observation of "what of these things look stalled," not meant as any slight to pjd. > > "Things not on the lists that I would love to be fixed": > > * IPv6 route lookup recursion I've fixed already/still getting review > > * ugen detachment crash I've fixed already/still getting review > > * BPF panics due to bpfdetach() on live interface > > * cbb child interrupt handler deregistration race+panic > > * SoftUpdates panics > > * anything from http://www.holm.cc/stress/log/ > > > > Of the things are you are working on right now, how many do you think > you'll have fixed in the next week? I'm definitely not trying to rush > you, just curious on what you have planned. >From this list: The IPv6 routing error/INVARIANTS-crash should be in shortly. The ugen detachment requires imp's testing; since he backed out my previous suboptimal workaround, and then unbacked it out, it is back to not being a crash again but could (interruptibly) hang an application using the ugen device. The bpfdetach() is something that should be fixed after rwatson's latest bpf.c delta, but needs testing. The cbb problem problem is fixable by adding locking or by adding ithread pinning, but I am unable to do anything about it. -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\ <> green@FreeBSD.org \ The Power to Serve! \ Opinions expressed are my own. \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040924154708.GI959>