From owner-freebsd-current Sun Apr 23 23: 5: 8 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB8E237B9BD for ; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 23:05:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id XAA66216; Sun, 23 Apr 2000 23:05:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 23:05:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <200004240605.XAA66216@apollo.backplane.com> To: Richard Wackerbarth Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SMP changes and breaking kld object module compatibility References: <200004231909.MAA09128@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> <00042315214900.24082@nomad.dataplex.net> <200004232031.NAA64273@apollo.backplane.com> <00042315420301.24082@nomad.dataplex.net> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG : :On Sun, 23 Apr 2000, Matthew Dillon wrote: :> :> :Rather than break the FreeBSD4 modules over which you have no control, :> :perhaps your arguments should be used to accelerate the 5.0 release :> :and make 4.x a short lived branch. :> :> I don't think this is possible. 4.0 is the most stable release we've :> ever had, and I am confident that the 4.x series of releases will be :> the best in FreeBSD's history probably until 5.1 or 5.2. : :It's all in the name. I don't disagree with your assesment of the code bases. :However, I consider your SMP changes VERY destablizing; they BREAK :lots of modules :-( Huh? No they don't. They simply require recompiling the modules. If they actually broke the modules I wouldn't be trying to MFC it to -stable. :... :I'm sure that we will get over it and have something that settles into a :quite solid product. : :... :(Richard Wackerbarth ) -Matt Matthew Dillon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message