Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 09:21:54 -0400 From: "Dan Langille" <dan@langille.org> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] : libc_r/uthread/uthread_write.c Message-ID: <3F77F9B2.31496.33BADDB7@localhost> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10309290859280.25117-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> References: <3F77D27E.6203.3321BA14@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 29 Sep 2003 at 9:02, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Dan Langille wrote: > > > On 18 Sep 2003 at 7:50, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > > > > > > > Right, this seems correct to me. > > > > All our testing on this patch has been successful. I'm going to do a > > few more tests on different hardware under 4.8-stable. > > > > What's the next step? Commit it? Get others to test with it first? > > Sure, it looks good enough to commit. Good. I'd commit it, but..... > > > > The problem found when running under pthreads on 4.8-stable [i.e. > > > > EOT is not returned to the application code] is not found with libkse > > > > on 5.1-current. > > > > FWIW: our regression tests are failing under 5.1 and we suspect that > > MTIOCERRSTAT ioctl() has changed since 4.8. We're getting: > > > > btape: dev.c:1119 Doing MTIOCERRSTAT errno=22 ERR=Invalid argument > > > > We'll continue with our 5.1 work, but we'd like to finish up with 4.8 > > ASAP. > > Well, I can commit it to -current first, then it can go into > -stable. I'm not sure about the ioctl, though. OK, please do commit to -current. How long do you think is an appropriate delay until MFC? 7 days? -- Dan Langille : http://www.langille.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F77F9B2.31496.33BADDB7>