Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 23:10:05 +0000 From: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> To: Ben Kaduk <minimarmot@gmail.com> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Konstantin Belousov <kib@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r241896 - in head: . cddl/contrib/opensolaris/lib/libzpool/common/sys share/man/man9 sys/cam/ctl sys/cddl/compat/opensolaris/kern sys/cddl/compat/opensolaris/sys sys/cddl/contrib/openso... Message-ID: <CAJ-FndDF%2BM_QALAuL_z9b5X_T4=En7Ek26u0kbqMEANcWLVcLQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAK2BMK7srogaYt6Y9fp=HYSY64NXwBSFDHTuXiMYhbPmOD2NAg@mail.gmail.com> References: <201210221750.q9MHot26061585@svn.freebsd.org> <CAK2BMK5c==SJ%2BySe7S70ZJyph_2X%2BdU%2B9zBftdatWqTVsH5rsA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-FndCTQjxbhpv-nA_oiVcHbKxwvpG_0qN9Cr4HV7_xfSQbeQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAK2BMK7srogaYt6Y9fp=HYSY64NXwBSFDHTuXiMYhbPmOD2NAg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Ben Kaduk <minimarmot@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Ben Kaduk <minimarmot@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Konstantin Belousov <kib@freebsd.org> wrote: >> Hi Ben, >> no, ports/thirdy part should be adjusted on the -CURRENT ABI. >> Leaving MPSAFE would just leave confusion and a way to *not do* the conversion. > > Hi Attilio, > > I agree that port/thirdparty filesystems must be adjusted to the > -current ABI. If the only change is ABI, not API, though, recompiling > is sufficient; no code changes are needed. > But the present state of affairs is that correct, working (MPSAFE) > code is broken, and there was no possibility to make it correct for > the new ABI prior to the ABI change. It seems rather inconsiderate of > the users of -current (and we really want people to continue to run > -current!) to gratuitously break the API (well, KPI) as well as KBI, > when KPI change is not immediately necessary. I must tell the user to > include "#define MPSAFE (0)" as a workaround until a patch can be > committed to the port, let alone the upstream! The 10.0 release is a > bit off, yet; can we not spare a few months for lag between KBI change > and KPI change to allow third-parties who are paying attention to get > a smooth transition? "Rebuild the port" is much easier than "observe > errors, dink around for a while investigating, patch the code, and > rebuild the port." > MPSAFE deorbit is a long-term project (which I am very happy to see > happen; thank you both Attilio and Kostantin and all!), but this step > seems rushed. Why must KPI change occur in lockstep with KBI change? The point is that KPI/KBI of -CURRENT can change as long as __FreeBSD_version is bumped (and if you really want to know my opinion, I already see this as a forceful thing because it would not be necessary in my mind, but I second the will of the majority of developers). So, if the KPI/KBI changes all the thirdy part code, ports and everything else must adapt. MPSAFE flag is not any longer supported and code needs to be ported appropriately to -CURRENT interface. Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-FndDF%2BM_QALAuL_z9b5X_T4=En7Ek26u0kbqMEANcWLVcLQ>