From owner-freebsd-arch Sat May 4 10:36:36 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wemm.org (12-232-135-171.client.attbi.com [12.232.135.171]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A87837B4A2; Sat, 4 May 2002 10:35:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from overcee.wemm.org (overcee.wemm.org [10.0.0.3]) by fw.wemm.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g44HZF416897; Sat, 4 May 2002 10:35:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from wemm.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by overcee.wemm.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4109D3811; Sat, 4 May 2002 10:35:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: Wes Peters , John Baldwin , Terry Lambert , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: savcore dump names? In-Reply-To: <13738.1020418876@critter.freebsd.dk> Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 10:35:15 -0700 From: Peter Wemm Message-Id: <20020504173515.4109D3811@overcee.wemm.org> Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > And for reasons I have yet to fathom, Peter suddenly drags a > completely unrelated patch (MII) into the picture, and rather than > do the sensible thing (ie: test the patch or reply to my email where > I answered his questions) he goes "That makes me feel really warm > and cozy" with absolutely no facts or technical backing. > > If Peter or anybody else has any concerns about the patch, then > please SAY what these concerns are, or optionally: test the patch > and see for yourself if your concerns are founded or unfounded. My concerns are pretty simple. You're chopping stuff out of a particularly hairy bit of timing sensitive device driver code, not being able to test it on the hardware that needs it, and all this for no apparent reason other than that you do not like (or do not understand) it. ie: we do not gain anything by it except risking breakage when the code gets used by more than a handful of people. In the light of the savecore fiasco, I'm worried that you are going to simply respond and and say "Not my problem" when all hell breaks loose in 6 to 12 months from now. When somebody upgrades their 4.x box to 5.0-REL and their 'tl' card stops working because of your "simplification", will you fix it? If you commit to that, then I'm no longer worried. This is not quite the same thing as userconfig. I practically moved heaven and earth to keep userconfig functional while there was no alternative. Now that hints are functional we do have an alternative for the people that are using -current (developers etc). Ironically, the thing that was needed to "fix" userconfig was the setenv stuff, and now that we have it we could bring userconfig back. Even more ironically, this support was all but committed before somebody ELSE actually did kill it for good ("date: 2001/ 11/05 21:46:35; author: phk"). On the plus side, unplugging userconfig from life support was probably a good thing as it will force the development of a more user-friendly thing in loader. One way or another, this *will* be done by 5.0-R. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message