Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 04:26:57 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> To: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [RFC] SysV SHM on 64-bit platforms Message-ID: <20080119122657.GN99258@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <200801181217.52788.jkim@FreeBSD.org> References: <200801181217.52788.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org> [080119 00:05] wrote: > While I was working on kern/113218, I realized it is a bigger problem > than I originally thought: > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=113218 > > Because fixing this PR breaks ABI, I had to make compat shims. But > the question is which branch to break? Since we are very close to > 7.0-RELEASE, the question became more complicated. A lot of people > are asking me to fix this PR because it is much needed fix for large > database installations, so I have to make a quick decision. :-( I think this is a step forward so it's not so bad, just make sure to talk to "re@" about your MFCs, if it'll work out. > > I think I have four options (with corresponding patches): > - Option 1: HEAD. > - Option 2: HEAD and RELENG_7. > - Option 3: HEAD, RELENG_7, and RELENG_7_0. > - Option 4: Don't do anything ATM. Break it with ipc_perm later. I like option 3 if possible. > FYI, fixing ipc_perm is a lot more complicated and very intrusive. Why does ipc_perm need fixing? -- - Alfred Perlstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080119122657.GN99258>