Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 11:41:53 +0100 (BST) From: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>, "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SMP changes and breaking kld object module compatibility Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0004241138420.62105-100000@salmon.nlsystems.com> In-Reply-To: <200004240617.XAA66270@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> :I'm sure that something can be done for the kld compatibility issues
> :so that you can have your SMP cake and eat it too. Just give it a bit
> :more thought. :)
> :
> :- Jordan
>
> Thought I have. Time I don't. While I don't particularly see a
> problem staying compatible with KLD modules that do spl*() calls,
> It's several day's worth of additional work when we go through
> the whole review / test / test-again process. I've already gone
> through this process for what was committed to -current and I have
> already tested the patches under 4.x. I do not have time to go
> through it yet again due to having to make additional difficult-to-test
> changes.
>
> If this is an issue I suppose core can vote on whether the SMP
> cleanup should be MFC'd to 4.x. I've already laid out all the
> reasons why I think it's a good idea to do. I don't have the 40
> man-hours it will take to guarentee compatibility with existing kld's
> (even if most are probably already compatible) so if you make that
> a requirement, the result will be no MFC at all.
>
> So you guys (core) choose -- do you want 4.x to reap the benefits of
> further SMP development or not? If you choose no, beware that without
> this base cleanup there is *NO* chance whatsoever of any further SMP
> work being MFC'd to 4.x. None. Zilch. It will have diverged too
> much.
Personally (i.e. not speaking for core), I really want to preserve both
the API and ABI for as many kernel interfaces as possible in the 4.x
branch. This does restrict the kinds of work which can be done on 4.x but
I'm convinced that this will improve both the percieved ("I recompiled my
kernel and now it panics on boot - this sucks") and actual stability of
the system.
--
Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com
Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 20 8442 9037
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0004241138420.62105-100000>