From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 29 22:27:48 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1623716A468; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:27:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [209.31.154.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE42713C468; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:27:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [209.31.154.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5425D4AC78; Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:27:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:27:47 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Julian Elischer In-Reply-To: <479E3079.3000803@elischer.org> Message-ID: <20080129222455.T53151@fledge.watson.org> References: <200801240850.m0O8o2JQ023500@freefall.freebsd.org> <4798564B.7070500@elischer.org> <20080128185830.B56811@fledge.watson.org> <479E3079.3000803@elischer.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: Daniel Eischen , Gary Stanley , freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: threads/119920: fork broken in libpthread X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:27:48 -0000 On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Julian Elischer wrote: >>>> dan what IS the fix for this? I assume you must have fixed it in >>>> -current/7 >>> >>> You want cvs diff -u -r1.126 -r1.128 src/lib/libkse/thread/thr_kern.c. The >>> WARNS'ify diffs are not necessary, so it should look something like shown >>> below. Probably an MFC of all of libkse (minus jasone's malloc changes) >>> should be done to -7 and -6. >> >> Should the patch be considered for an errata notice for 6.x? Should we be >> trying to MFC this to 7.x for inclusion with 7.0 or does it need more time >> to shake out and should potentially be a 7.0 errata notice or just appear >> in 7.1? > > yes and yes and no If the fix is going to ship in 7.0 and hasn't yet been MFC'd, that needs to happen ASAP. Could someone forward the patch/etc over to re@ for approval? The procedure for doing an errata patch is basically that whoever is proposing the errata patch needs to e-mail a patch, or multiple patches if it's different for different branches, a proposed branch list, and as much of a completed errata notice template as possible (impact, etc) to re@ for review. Once re@ is OK that it's ready to go, it will get sent over to secteam@ to be put into production, binary updates generated, etc. If in doubt about which branches, drop e-mail to secteam@ to ask which are supported, etc. At this point we would probably not advise doing the errata patch before 7.0 is released, so priority should go to preparing any patches that need to go out with 7.0. Thanks, Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge