Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:47:45 +0100 From: Steven Hartland <steven.hartland@multiplay.co.uk> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org>, Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r286625 - head/sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs Message-ID: <55CA1921.6030606@multiplay.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <55C9D3A5.1020000@FreeBSD.org> References: <201508111039.t7BAdK1x071658@repo.freebsd.org> <55C9D3A5.1020000@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/08/2015 11:51, Andriy Gapon wrote: > On 11/08/2015 13:39, Alexander Motin wrote: >> Author: mav >> Date: Tue Aug 11 10:39:19 2015 >> New Revision: 286625 >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/286625 >> >> Log: >> MFV r277425: >> 5376 arc_kmem_reap_now() should not result in clearing arc_no_grow >> Reviewed by: Christopher Siden <christopher.siden@delphix.com> >> Reviewed by: George Wilson <george.wilson@delphix.com> >> Reviewed by: Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk> >> Reviewed by: Richard Elling <richard.elling@richardelling.com> >> Approved by: Dan McDonald <danmcd@omniti.com> >> Author: Matthew Ahrens <mahrens@delphix.com> >> >> illumos/illumos-gate@2ec99e3e987d8aa273f1e9ba2b983557d058198c >> >> Modified: >> head/sys/cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs/arc.c > Alexander, > > thank you very much for bringing all these upstream changes into our tree. > It seems that some of the changes, though, non-trivially overlap with > FreeBSD-specific changes to ZFS code. I think that this change is one > of the examples. > It would be good if a strategy of the resolution of each non-trivial > conflict was described and possibly discussed. Reviewing the change > without knowing the general idea behind it is not always easy. > I actually eliminated most of the miss-matches between illumos and FreeBSD in this area pretty recently, so I'm not sure that there's actually many FreeBSD specific changes, hence conflicts. Given I worked in this area before I did also make a point of reviewing the upstream commit. That's not to say it wouldn't be good to review these sorts of changes especially given the potential impact, however we don't have a very good track record (myself included) in reviewing things so I'm concerned that would just become a real progress blocker. What do others think? Regards Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?55CA1921.6030606>