From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 29 06:21:04 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D149716A4B3 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 2003 06:21:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bast.unixathome.org (bast.unixathome.org [66.11.174.150]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AA994401A for ; Mon, 29 Sep 2003 06:21:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dan@langille.org) Received: from wocker (wocker.unixathome.org [192.168.0.99]) by bast.unixathome.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7296C3F52; Mon, 29 Sep 2003 09:20:41 -0400 (EDT) From: "Dan Langille" To: Daniel Eischen Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 09:21:54 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <3F77F9B2.31496.33BADDB7@localhost> Priority: normal References: <3F77D27E.6203.3321BA14@localhost> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.02a) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] : libc_r/uthread/uthread_write.c X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 13:21:04 -0000 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/