Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 20:32:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Alan Cox <alc@cs.rice.edu> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org>, Alan Cox <alc@cs.rice.edu>, jkh@zippy.cdrom.com, Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com>, jgrosch@mooseriver.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 3.2 Freeze date Message-ID: <199905110332.UAA73934@apollo.backplane.com> References: <199905101056.GAA08880@lakes.dignus.com> <199905102225.QAA05610@harmony.village.org> <199905110233.TAA73664@apollo.backplane.com> <19990510214754.A88343@nonpc.cs.rice.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 07:33:28PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
:>
:> My main interest are the NFS/TCP fixes, which Alan now has a -stable patch
:> for. But it's already the tenth so if it goes in now the source will
:> then have to be reviewed by more gurus ( post-commit ).
:>
:
:The NFS/TCP realignment patch was checked into -stable last Sat
:morning. Is there anything else?
:
:Alan
I think that's all the items on my hotlist. Except ( unrelated to
Alan ) I still do not like the fact that a 'flags 0x40' must be specified
for the ppc to disable the extra probes that cause people's machines to
crash. Even though the flag is set in GENERIC, there will be a lot of
people upgrading who have their own custom kernels and will almost
certainly forget to add the flag. I would much prefer if the *default*
were to disable the extra probes and the flag enabled them.
I just don't see the point of intentionally destroying backwards
compatibility ( especially when it could lockup someone's machine ) when
it is so easy to simply reverse the sense of the flag.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199905110332.UAA73934>