Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 12:55:48 +0000 From: Edward Tomasz Napierala <trasz@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>, svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r312988 - in head/sys: compat/cloudabi compat/linux kern sys Message-ID: <20170211125548.GB3574@brick> In-Reply-To: <148601396.h8ndg2hV6R@ralph.baldwin.cx> References: <201701301257.v0UCvNrK065993@repo.freebsd.org> <3349880.lYJPXOWCO7@ralph.baldwin.cx> <20170201182337.GG3334@FreeBSD.org> <148601396.h8ndg2hV6R@ralph.baldwin.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 0201T1236, John Baldwin wrote: > On Wednesday, February 01, 2017 10:23:37 AM Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 02:13:36PM -0800, John Baldwin wrote: > > J> On Monday, January 30, 2017 12:57:23 PM Edward Tomasz Napierala wrote: > > J> > Author: trasz > > J> > Date: Mon Jan 30 12:57:22 2017 > > J> > New Revision: 312988 > > J> > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/312988 > > J> > > > J> > Log: > > J> > Add kern_listen(), kern_shutdown(), and kern_socket(), and use them > > J> > instead of their sys_*() counterparts in various compats. The svr4 > > J> > is left untouched, because there's no point. > > J> > > J> Note that you can compile test svr4 since it is still in the tree. > > J> If we want to remove svr4, then we should remove it. However, we > > J> should maintain code that is in the tree if it is still there. > > > > All we can do right now is maintain it as compilable. My example with > > COMPAT_OLDSOCK shows that SVR4 simply doesn't work as kld, and nobody > > complains. > > > > Okay, what if I say on freebsd-arch/freebsd-current that I am going > > to remove it and wait for any objections for a month, and then do it? > > I would rather remove it than start skipping it in tree sweeps. We should > strive to maintain code that is in our tree. If you can't get things tested, > then we are better off removing the code instead of having it rot in the > tree (cf the discussion on old ISA drivers). On one hand you're right. On the other - in this particular case including svr4 (which I have no way of testing) in this sweep could break it, while not touching it couldn't, as the old method continues to work. Removing it is not a bad idea, though. Gleb, would you?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170211125548.GB3574>