From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 26 08:41:43 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E87DF16A402; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:41:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91FE113C483; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:41:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from phobos.samsco.home (phobos.samsco.home [192.168.254.11]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l3Q8fTkB018808; Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:41:30 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <4630659E.9040300@samsco.org> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:41:02 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2pre) Gecko/20070111 SeaMonkey/1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yar Tikhiy References: <200704211417.l3LEHUKK078832@repoman.freebsd.org> <462A27CD.5090006@freebsd.org> <1177170852.32761.0.camel@localhost> <20070424091858.GA31094@comp.chem.msu.su> <462FA0BC.8020207@freebsd.org> <20070426054228.GA53614@comp.chem.msu.su> <463049C6.9080100@samsco.org> <20070426082958.GC53614@comp.chem.msu.su> In-Reply-To: <20070426082958.GC53614@comp.chem.msu.su> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]); Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:41:30 -0600 (MDT) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.5 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.1.8 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on pooker.samsco.org Cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Andre Oppermann , cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, Stephan Uphoff , Coleman Kane Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/amd64/amd64 pmap.c src/sys/i386/i386 pmap.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 08:41:44 -0000 Yar Tikhiy wrote: > On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 12:42:14AM -0600, Scott Long wrote: >> Yar Tikhiy wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 02:41:00PM -0400, Stephan Uphoff wrote: >>>> Yar Tikhiy wrote: >>>>> On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 09:54:12AM -0600, Coleman Kane wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 2007-04-21 at 17:03 +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Stephan Uphoff wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ups 2007-04-21 14:17:30 UTC >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> FreeBSD src repository >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Modified files: >>>>>>>> sys/amd64/amd64 pmap.c >>>>>>>> sys/i386/i386 pmap.c >>>>>>>> Log: >>>>>>>> Modify TLB invalidation handling. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Reviewed by: alc@, peter@ >>>>>>>> MFC after: 1 week >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Could you be a bit more verbose what changed here and why it >>>>>>> was done? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> I agree. I would really like to know what the modification accomplishes. >>>>>> >>>>> Alas, we don't live in an ideal world. If we did, our commit >>>>> messages would always follow the well-known guideline: >>>>> >>>>> 0. Tell the essence of the change. >>>>> 1. Give the reason for the change. >>>>> 2. Explain the change unless it's trivial. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> In the ideal world there are no NDAs :-) >>> Was the change based on a document under NDA? Then this case raises >>> an interesting question: to what extent an open source developer >>> is allowed to explain his code that was based on a document under >>> NDA? Of course, it should depend on the NDA, but I suspect that a >>> typical NDA requires a lawyer to interpret it unambiguously (I've >>> never signed one by myself), and an overcautious lawyer would say >>> that the open source code itself violates the NDA because anybody >>> can RTFS. :-) >>> >> Wow, that was painful to read. NDAs that specifically allow source >> code licensing and distribution are quite common. They even get written >> and reviewed by lawyers! =-) > > It's a good news! But what about explaining the code to the public? > > - Mr. Developer, why does it take an ugly hack to make the device work? > - Can't tell ya, I'm under NDA. > I think you have to respect that John and Stephan were doing the right thing with this. This was no different than a security fix that gets committed before the vulnerability is disclosed. No one seems to get upset that the security team operates this way. Scott