From owner-freebsd-current Mon Mar 2 15:11:35 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA09662 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 15:11:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from dyson.iquest.net (dyson.iquest.net [198.70.144.127]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA09657 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 15:11:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from toor@dyson.iquest.net) Received: (from root@localhost) by dyson.iquest.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA14774; Mon, 2 Mar 1998 18:11:08 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from toor) From: "John S. Dyson" Message-Id: <199803022311.SAA14774@dyson.iquest.net> Subject: Re: 3.0-RELEASE? In-Reply-To: <199803021729.KAA15934@usr02.primenet.com> from Terry Lambert at "Mar 2, 98 05:29:16 pm" To: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 1998 18:11:08 -0500 (EST) Cc: smp@csn.net, opsys@mail.webspan.net, toor@dyson.iquest.net, jak@cetlink.net, current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL32 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Terry Lambert said: > > > > I think that the *biggest* and most complex thing that will be missing > > > > will be the fine-grained SMP. It seems that we'll have ELF support, > > > > but I forget (or simply don't know) if we (they) decided that ELF will be > > > > primary or not. > > > > > > I was hoping to see SMP (in ANY form), kernel threads, RAID, and > > > softupdates, and maybe some TCP stuff, SACK, etc.. > > > But RAID, and SMP, and softupdates isn't bad. > > > > I know this probably won't be good news for most, but I don't see SMP being > > in 3.0: > > I think if this happens, it would be a good idea to relabel the 3.x > branch to be the 2.3 or 2.x (x>2) branch, and reserve 3.0. > We have already discussed this in -core (I was a proponent of 2.5.X), however now I believe that the right decision (due to lots of factors) is to call it 3.0. > > I think whatever is released should support low granularity SMP, at > the very least. I would be *very* unhappy with having to bump the > version number to 4.0 in the process (it implies too long a time frame, > and it's frankly too large a number to allow the software to appear > trustworthy, IMO. Cv: SVR4). > Well, think of it like this: 3.0 simple SMP. 3.1 much better SMP. 10.0 Terry SMP. :-). **.0 Terry BSD. :-). Actually, people, Terry does have really good ideas in this area. I think that we would profit from a kernel meeting (Terry, DG, me, and others (hopefully a few of our UK/European/OZ people also) who regularly work on structural issues.) Even if we don't adopt everything that Terry says, I found his talk to be very educational. Maybe not worth a trip overseas by itself, but perhaps it might be partial justification. (Unless we could get Terry to write a document that is intellegible at less than postdoc reading skills level. :-)). -- John | Never try to teach a pig to sing, dyson@freebsd.org | it just makes you look stupid, jdyson@nc.com | and it irritates the pig. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message