Date: Tue, 08 Aug 1995 14:29:13 -0700 From: David Greenman <davidg@Root.COM> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> Cc: CVS-commiters@freefall.cdrom.com, cvs-sys@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/isa syscons.c Message-ID: <199508082129.OAA02174@corbin.Root.COM> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 08 Aug 95 10:26:16 PDT." <199508081726.KAA04241@gndrsh.aac.dev.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> >> > Actually it isn't really OK to simply substitute M_NOWAIT with M_WAITOK. >> > If one of the malloc()s in scioctl() sleeps, then another process may >> > run and use the half-allocated resources. If one of the malloc()s in in >> > scioctl() or scopen() sleeps, then another process may run and repeat the >> > ioctl and (at best) allocate the resources twice. >> >> Argh. Perhaps I was too hasty. If John decides to rearchitect this, >> I'll pull it out of 2.1 > >We really should let bits sit in -current for a week or two before pulling >them into the 2.1 branch, per David's mail on this subject about how to get >stuff into the branch, I though that was the plan. This allows time for >these types of problems to surface so we don't have to go back things out >of the -stable branch. I've generally been doing this, with a few exceptions for extremely well understood changes...but even those usually get a few days of testing in -current. Generally, assume that I'm responsible for managing what contributions make it into the 2.1 branch. I spend a large amount of time evaluating and testing things before bringing them in, and short circuiting this procedure only results in the reduced quality of the product. -DG
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199508082129.OAA02174>