Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 00:05:07 -0000 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Marko Zec <zec@tel.fer.hr>, Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Request to back out Luigis polled-net patch in -stable. Message-ID: <p05101002b836df81d329@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <3C112A14.21F08D50@tel.fer.hr> References: <200112071926.fB7JQx301437@mass.dis.org> <3C112A14.21F08D50@tel.fer.hr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 9:44 PM +0100 12/7/01, Marko Zec wrote: >Mike Smith wrote: > > > I would also like to point to the parallel piece of code: Jun-Itohs >> > ALTQ for which he reliably has maintained a patch relative to the >> > 4.X branch and which despite various peoples requests have not > > > haphazardly been committed into -stable. > > >> Yes; this is an excellent example of how it can be done better. > >Sorry guys, but aren't you comparing apples with oranges? They are comparing how two changes were made. Not what the changes actually *do*, but the path the changes took to get into -stable. In that sense, they are not comparing apples to oranges. They are comparing the conveyor belts under the apples vs the conveyor belts the oranges were allowed to use. >Concerning the request for removal of the polling code, I personally >as a BSD rookie cannot judge your arguments properly, but I must >admit that the wording and intonation of pkh's note wasn't very >pleasant... Poul-Henning included one comment about "track records" which may have been a bit harsh, but if you ignore that one sentence than everything he said seemed pretty reasoned (ie, "calmly thought out", as opposed to "emotional outburst"), and pretty reasonable. I think PHK and Mike Smith have made a pretty good case, but I will admit that I don't know all of the issues involved. I suspect the other side of this debate is that Luigi's change is meant for high-load situations, and very very very few people are running a 5.0-current system in those kinds of high-load situations. I can see that being a good reason to put it in stable, but even with this good reason, I think it might be better to back the change out of stable until AFTER 4.5 is released. This change did not go thru the "normal routine" for changes, and as such I do think any developer has the right to make a case that the change should be backed out. I *like* what the change is trying to do, and the methods it is using certainly sound interesting. But I don't think it would hurt to have it looked over a bit more before committing it to -stable. That's just my opinion, as I watch this debate from the sidelines. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p05101002b836df81d329>