From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 15 20:04:54 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15AA716A4DA; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 20:04:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kmacy@fsmware.com) Received: from demos.bsdclusters.com (demos.bsdclusters.com [69.55.225.36]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B55DE43D45; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 20:04:53 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kmacy@fsmware.com) Received: from demos.bsdclusters.com (demos [69.55.225.36]) by demos.bsdclusters.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k7FK4rlZ003488; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:04:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kmacy@fsmware.com) Received: from localhost (kmacy@localhost) by demos.bsdclusters.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id k7FK4qOv003481; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:04:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: demos.bsdclusters.com: kmacy owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:04:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Kip Macy X-X-Sender: kmacy@demos.bsdclusters.com To: Alexander Leidinger In-Reply-To: <20060815153451.604d16f1@Magellan.Leidinger.net> Message-ID: <20060815130418.I18116@demos.bsdclusters.com> References: <20060815141151.15ae4349@Magellan.Leidinger.net> <44E1BD03.2030402@FreeBSD.org> <20060815144625.362bf376@Magellan.Leidinger.net> <44E1C3E4.7080508@FreeBSD.org> <20060815153451.604d16f1@Magellan.Leidinger.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Suleiman Souhlal , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS-UP: starting to commit linuxolator (SoC 2006) changes... X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 20:04:54 -0000 What does testing buy us when you've already admitted that futexes et al. are broken? -Kip On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting Suleiman Souhlal (Tue, 15 Aug 2006 14:53:56 +0200): > > I'm doing post-commit checks now (everything is commited and I'm doing > a kernel build now)... > > > Alexander Leidinger wrote: > > > > > I already started... and I don't want to commit some parts (the linker > > > stuff which allows to use the module on amd64). > > > > > > It is also not used by default, as long as we have 2.4.2 for the linux > > > version, no new functions will be used by glibc. So there is no change > > > in behavior after the commits. I tested with acroread (which has issues > > > when run with a 2.6.16 compat.linux.osrelease version, where the new > > > functions are used by glibc). > > > > > > So this gives us: > > > - coverity reports for the code *before the end of the SoC* > > > > Why the rush? I'm sure Roman will be around even when the SoC is over. > > Yes, but first he will take a vacation, and then he will not be > available as much as he is now. And maybe Coverity will detect a bug > which we search currently but can't find (don't know how likely this > is, but it is at least possible). > > > Also, I'm not asking you to wait a month, just a couple of days until > > more people have had a chance to look at the changes. > > I thought about this before deciding to commit it. Most of the code was > available in P4. Those people with real interest already had a chance > to look at it, or they didn't had time to do so. If they didn't had > time to have a look at it, who knows if they have time to do it now? > There's always someone who says "oh... if you waited 2 days longer...". > > That's not the only reason. Tomorrow my holiday is over and I have to > catch up at work. Today I have plenty of time to commit urgent issues > (e.g., tinderbox breakage). And at the upcomming WE I may not have > enough time to do what I do today. > > Additionally, the work is a little bit stalled currently, we need more > testers of the new code. There are a lot of people out there which want > to test, but don't know how to patch or fear to do something wrong when > they patch. With the approach I've taken, they just need to run a > sysctl (compat.linux.osrelease=2.6.16) and they can test. All which > don't want to test just don't need to care about it. > > > It's a bit unreasonable to say "here's a patch, please look at it" and > > commit it less than a day later. > > Yes, it was a little bit fast... > > > > - no change in behavior in the default case, since the new calls > > > aren't used by glibs as long as... see following entry > > > - easy testing possibility (sysctl compat.linux.osrelease=2.6.16, > > > defaults to 2.4.2) > > > - more eyes on the code > > > > Those are not valid reasons to commit unreviewed and potentially wrong > > changes. > > Uhm... how many percent of code committed to current is reviewed before > it is commited? How many percent of the code I committed is not > reviewed and how much is this related to the amount of unreviewed code > committed in a busy week? > > I'm running a kernel with this changes here and since I didn't enabled > the new code with the sysctl, I don't see any difference in the > behavior of the linuxolator. The potentially wrong code isn't active. > It's like loading the linprocfs module but not using it. > > Bye, > Alexander. > > -- > Calvin: Can you make a living playing silly games? His Dad: Actually, you > can be among the most overpaid people on the planet. > http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7 > http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137 > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >