Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 19:02:06 +0100 (CET) From: Soren Schmidt <sos@freebsd.dk> To: bright@wintelcom.net (Alfred Perlstein) Cc: rjesup@wgate.com (Randell Jesup), arch@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: HEADS-UP: await/asleep removal imminent Message-ID: <200101171802.TAA02435@freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: <20010117092109.O7240@fw.wintelcom.net> from Alfred Perlstein at "Jan 17, 2001 09:21:09 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
It seems Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > >> Peter Wemm and I suspect that ata doesn't need it. Right now I'm > > >> running several make -j128 buildworlds and buildkernels with this > > >> patch to catch any ata problems. > > > > Ummmm... > > > > It seems to me from reading the man page for asleep/await that > > they have significant utility, and that the real issue would be one of > > code not using them, especially as people work to remove the Giant > > lock for SMP. > > > > Or is the discussion in the man page wrong in some way? > > The manpage is correct, but we've yet to see it used properly in > the code with the exception of ata, and even with ata we're not > sure if it's needed. Uhm, well I tried removing it here, and now -current (on SMP HW) fails in new "interesting" ways. The problem here is that -current is not stable on SMP HW so the question is if this change in behavior is to the better or to the worse... I suggest creative manpower is used to stabilize -current, instead of fine trimming which API's should stay or not... -Søren 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?200101171802.TAA02435>