Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 10:03:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> Cc: Alok Dhir <adhir@forumone.com>, "'Richard Wackerbarth'" <rkw@dataplex.net>, "'freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG'" <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: SMP changes and breaking kld object module compatibility Message-ID: <200004241703.KAA70812@apollo.backplane.com> References: <AFD7CFC52B58014B9C0BFAF32EAB48EF014ECA@PLUTO.forumone.com> <3904693F.ED9C5FA6@newsguy.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:Because if we do not provide a STABLE ABI, we WON'T get third-party
:(binary only) kernel modules.
:
:I'm very divided in this issue. 4.x has just started, and would be
:seriously impaired if no further improvements to it's SMP get in. On
:the other hand, if we can't garantee third party vendors a stable ABI,
:we won't get third party vendors.
:
:Alas... Dillon, how much of SMP improvements will be getting back-ported
:without further breaks in ABI, specially as BSDI code starts to trickle
:in?
:
:--
:Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS)
Most of the SMP innards are invisible to the user and even invisible
(for the most part) to KLD's. For example, making the VM subsystem and
network stack MP-safe can probably be done without any external
visibility.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200004241703.KAA70812>