From owner-cvs-sys  Thu May 11 21:04:11 1995
Return-Path: cvs-sys-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id VAA28989
          for cvs-sys-outgoing; Thu, 11 May 1995 21:04:11 -0700
Received: from gndrsh.aac.dev.com (gndrsh.aac.dev.com [198.145.92.241])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id VAA28980
          ; Thu, 11 May 1995 21:04:02 -0700
Received: (from rgrimes@localhost) by gndrsh.aac.dev.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id VAA14015; Thu, 11 May 1995 21:03:55 -0700
From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com>
Message-Id: <199505120403.VAA14015@gndrsh.aac.dev.com>
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/vm vm_swap.c
To: phk@freefall.cdrom.com (Poul-Henning Kamp)
Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 21:03:54 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: CVS-commiters@freefall.cdrom.com, cvs-sys@freefall.cdrom.com
In-Reply-To: <199505120355.UAA28770@freefall.cdrom.com> from "Poul-Henning Kamp" at May 11, 95 08:55:01 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1363      
Sender: cvs-sys-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> 
> phk         95/05/11 20:55:00
> 
>   Modified:    sys/vm    vm_swap.c
>   Log:
>   I'm about to jump on the swap-initialization, and having talked
>   with davidg about it, I hereby kill two undocumented misfeatures:
>   The code to skip a miniroot in the swapdev is not particular useful, and
>   if we need it we need it to be done properly, ie size the fs and skip all
>   of it not some hardcoded size, and subtract what we skip from the length
>   in the first place.
>   The SEQSWAP dies too.  It's not the way to do it, it doesn't work, and
>   nobody have expressed any great desire for it to work.  The way to
>   implement it correctly would be a second argument to swapon(2) to give
>   a priority/policy information.  Low priority swapdevs can be made so
>   by adding them at a far offset (0x80000000 kind of thing), with almost no
>   modification to the strategy routine (in particular a offset per swapdev).
>   But until the need is obvious, it will not be done.

We are getting very close to code freeze for 2.0.5, is this such a good
idea at this time?  The kernel seems to be very stable right now, and
as soon as Jordan reviews a document why I am saying this will become
obvious.


-- 
Rod Grimes                                      rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com
Accurate Automation Company                   Custom computers for FreeBSD