From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Feb  2 19:01:47 2006
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF1DA16A420;
	Thu,  2 Feb 2006 19:01:47 +0000 (GMT)
	(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 4D58343D4C;
	Thu,  2 Feb 2006 19:01:47 +0000 (GMT)
	(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 C107F46CD0;
	Thu,  2 Feb 2006 14:01:28 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 19:03:39 +0000 (GMT)
From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>
X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org
To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <200602021345.38364.jhb@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <20060202190229.E38507@fledge.watson.org>
References: <200602020037.k120b6iM014699@repoman.freebsd.org>
	<200602021345.38364.jhb@freebsd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_thread.c src/sys/security/audit
 audit.c audit.h src/sys/sys proc.h
X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree <cvs-all.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-all>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-all@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2006 19:01:48 -0000


On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, John Baldwin wrote:

> Have you considered putting td_ar in the logical place in HEAD and only 
> doing the ABI-friendly "hack" for RELENG_6?  Maybe you could do the ABI 
> thing in HEAD to make the MFC easier and then update HEAD after the MFC to 
> be more intuitive?

Yes -- I was actually going to commit it that way, but changed my mind at the 
last minute.  My reasoning was that if we plan to MFC the changes, it is 
better to MFC them having tested them in the form they will be MFC'd.  Once 
they are MFC'd to RELENG_6, I will move the field back to the zero'd section 
and remove the thread constructor hook.

Robert N M Watson