From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 23 07:59:43 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A77816A52C for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 07:59:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.mho.com (smtp.mho.net [64.58.4.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5A4FC43D1D for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 07:59:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Received: (qmail 52322 invoked by uid 1002); 23 Feb 2004 15:59:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO freebsd.org) (64.58.1.252) by smtp.mho.net with SMTP; 23 Feb 2004 15:59:38 -0000 Message-ID: <403A22BB.6010409@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 08:56:43 -0700 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031103 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Poul-Henning Kamp References: <8758.1077551092@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: <8758.1077551092@critter.freebsd.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: John Baldwin Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/alpha/alpha mem.c promcons.csrc/sys/alpha/tlsbsrc/sys/cam/scsi scsi_ch.c scsi_pass.c scsi_pt.c s X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:59:43 -0000 Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <200402230945.42440.jhb@FreeBSD.org>, John Baldwin writes: > >>On Saturday 21 February 2004 06:13 pm, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> >>>In message <20040221161339.X52892@pooker.samsco.home>, Scott Long writes: >>> >>>>>A grace period is not possible, that is why I have been so vocal >>>>>with my heads-up messages to current for the last two weeks. >>>> >>>>What are the technical reasons for a grace period not being possible? >>> >>>The signflip on the GIANT flag. >> >>Which was arguably premature given the vast number of NEEDGIANT vs. NOGIANT >>case. The MPSAFE flag for interrupts hasn't been flipped yet either for that >>reason. > > > I thought the idea was to try to get the API's set up correctly before > the RELENG_5 branch so that we do not make MFC'ing impossible a few > months after the branchpoing like it happened for 3.x ? > > At least that was part of my motivation for flipping the flag. > > Another part is psychological: I think we need to mark the spots > that need work done rather than put congratulatory notices in dmesg > for the little headway we've done. > > And for both of these reasons I would advocate that MPSAFE gets flipped > before the branch as well. > I agree with these arguments. However, I would have liked to have seen a small grace period defined, especially since people are now bumping into the consequences of this change and not knowing why. I plan to do this with the interrupt API change when it comes. scott