Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 01:19:14 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@unixdaemons.com>, Gary Thorpe <gat7634@hotmail.com>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: multiple threads for interrupts Message-ID: <3D12E182.67F91292@mindspring.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0206202333160.34612-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Julian Elischer wrote: > you know mate, it would be a Good Thing (tm) > if you got back int ocoding... and I don;t mean codimg for that box in you > apartment, but coding so as to provide distinct reviewable patches for > FreeBSD or the topics you are interested in.. > > I know your excuses include: > 1/ your machines are not running -current Actually, the problem there is that patches against -stable are not considered acceptable because -current is so far and away from -stable that it's impossible to reconcile... there's more than a year and a half's difference in the code bases -- almost two years. > 2/ you are coding on an incompatible set of patches at teh moment Not a problem. I have disk space. Checking out multiple source trees isn't a problem (or wasn't, until the toolchain diverged). > 3/ you, like the rest of us have time constraints with work etc. Can't argue that one. > but: > > could you tone down teh lectures a bit until you can actually > start doing things to help with the load? > At least BDE is starting to commit things again which makes it > a much less annoying event to get a 'comentary' on one's style bugs > when one commits, because one knows the author is actually committing > things himself these days. (hopefully even more(!)) > > but you have not submitted code > for so long that it makes what you say less 'compelling'. I posted a corrective patch for the _BSD_WHAR_T_ definition problem with G++ 3.1 just the other day. A couple of months back, I posted patches to several major ethernet drivers to support soft interrupt coelescing (they were even integrated). Also did code review on the patches that Mario posted, and pointed out that they broke SIGPIPE delivery on write(2) to sockets. Etc. > If YOU were to come up with a set of 'swith-on'able (and switch-offable) > set of patches on any of the topics you find yourself discoursing on, > I'm sure that everyone would be thrilled to give them a try. For some of the things, there would need to be some baseline changes first. It's necessary to be able to set attributes on an address family structure for it to be properly integrated, rather than just being a proof of concept implementation. You willing to commit some struct changes, and some changes to uipc_*.c, before something can even get properly started? They would look like gratuitous changes, to start with... (fair warning). > s'nuff.. > > ok > > get to the coding wheel.. My LRP suggestion was made in the context of a graduate student looking for a project to work on. You really need to keep the subject lines straight, rather than dumping "all of Terry's posts" into a single bin, and treating them as if they were all about things I think other people should do to FreeBSD. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D12E182.67F91292>