Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 19:41:46 +0100 (BST) From: Dominic Marks <dominic_marks@btinternet.com> To: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: www/42512: Increase readability of USENIX summit document Message-ID: <20020907184146.8ECB04D6@host217-39-133-106.in-addr.btopenworld.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Number: 42512 >Category: www >Synopsis: Increase readability of USENIX summit document >Confidential: no >Severity: non-critical >Priority: low >Responsible: freebsd-www >State: open >Quarter: >Keywords: >Date-Required: >Class: change-request >Submitter-Id: current-users >Arrival-Date: Sat Sep 07 11:50:02 PDT 2002 >Closed-Date: >Last-Modified: >Originator: Dominic Marks >Release: FreeBSD 4.6-STABLE i386 >Organization: National Physical Laboratory, UK >Environment: System: FreeBSD gallium 4.6-STABLE FreeBSD 4.6-STABLE #2: Sun Sep 1 11:11:10 BST 2002 dom@gallium:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/NIFTY i386 >Description: This changes the names used in the discussion for committers to their committer handles. I find this makes the dicussion much easier to read if you are already familiar with reading cvs-all, but no harder to read if you're not. In fact it is probably easier for those who don't also since it extends the length of the abbreviations in every case. I also fixed some naming errors, either no name, wrong name or misspelt name. I believe my correction of Jeffrey Xu to Jeffrey Hsu is correct, but I'm not 100% certain. Finally some parts which were brief or incomplete were fleshed out, an example of this would be describing how people online / on IRC interacted with the summit. >How-To-Repeat: NA. >Fix: Index: usenix-devsummit.sgml =================================================================== RCS file: /media/cvs/freebsd/www/en/events/2002/usenix-devsummit.sgml,v retrieving revision 1.4 diff -u -3 -p -r1.4 usenix-devsummit.sgml --- usenix-devsummit.sgml 4 Sep 2002 14:41:53 -0000 1.4 +++ usenix-devsummit.sgml 4 Sep 2002 20:00:02 -0000 @@ -43,44 +43,52 @@ Stokely</a>.</p> <li><a href="#open">Open Discussion</a></li> </ul> -<p>NOTE: As usual I missed some names, please add those I missed.</p> +<p>NOTE: As usual I missed some names, please add those I missed. During + the discussion names have been abbreviated, for committers their + FreeBSD.org username has been used, for non committers the initials + are used.</p> <h2>Attending:</h2> -<p>In person:</p> +<p>Committers In Person:</p> +<ul> + <li>Robert Watson (rwatson)</li> + <li>Julian Elischer (julian)</li> + <li>John Baldwin (jhb)</li> + <li>Matt Dillon (dillon)</li> + <li>Warner Losh (warner)</li> + <li>David O'Brien (obrien)</li> + <li>Jeffery Hsu (hsu)</li> + <li>Jennifer Yang (jennifer)</li> + <li>Bosko Milekic (bmilekic)</li> + <li>Alfred Perlstein (alfred)</li> + <li>Doug Rabson (dfr)</li> + <li>Paul Saab (ps)</li> + <li>Brooks Davis (brooks)</li> + <li>Murray Stokely (murray)</li> + <li>Jonathan Mini (mini)</li> + <li>Takanori Watanabe (takawata)</li> + <li>Gordon Tetlow (gordon)</li> + <li>Gregory Shapiro (gshapiro)</li> + <li>Sam Leffler (sam)</li> + <li>Bruce Mah (bmah)</li> +</ul> + +<p>Also In Person:</p> <ul> - <li>Robert Watson (RW)</li> - <li>Julian Elischer(JE)</li> - <li>John Baldwin(JB)</li> - <li>Matt Dillon (MD)</li> - <li>Warner Losh (WL)</li> - <li>David O'Brian (DO)</li> - <li>Jeffery Xu (JX)</li> - <li>Jennifer Ying (JY)</li> - <li>Bosko Milekic (BM)</li> - <li>Alfred Perlstein (AP)</li> - <li>Doug Rabson (DR)</li> - <li>Paul Saab (PS)</li> - <li>Brooks Davis (BD)</li> - <li>Murray Stokely (MS)</li> - <li>Jonathan Mini (JM)</li> - <li>Watanabe ???</li> - <li>Gordon Tetlow (GT)</li> - <li>Gregory Schapiro (GS)</li> - <li>Sam Leffler (SL)</li> - <li>Bruce Mah</li> <li>George Neville-Neil (gnn)</li> - <li>Unknown (??)</li> + <!--<li>Unknown (??)</li>--> </ul> <p>On The Phone:</p> <ul> - <li>Alan Cox (AC)</li> + <li>Alan Cox (alc)</li> </ul> <p>Via webcast:</p> -<p>??</p> +<p>Many people listened in via the stream and chatted on IRC to one + another while the discussion took place.</p> <p>The meeting followed a format where each section was led by an individual and then a discussion ensued. Not all of the discussion @@ -125,75 +133,75 @@ perforce and people have to patch it.</p <div class="discussion"> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : What about userland?</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : What about userland?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : It can run different threads +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : It can run different threads in userland. The primitives are all there it just needs a bit more help. I would like to put an idea out. Is it a good idea to be able to have non-threaded programs linking with threaded libraries?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : Putting async I/O into such a +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : Putting async I/O into such a thing would make sense.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : The library would not care +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : The library would not care who was accessing it.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : For instance libc could be +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : For instance libc could be threaded or not.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : That would be interesting. I +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : That would be interesting. I don't know if the two interfaces are incompatible.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JB</strong> : X does this.</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">jhb</strong> : X does this.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">MD</strong> : It is very doable but you +<p><strong class="speaker">dillon</strong> : It is very doable but you have to make it non-preemptive. If you're switching non-preemptively you can use library routines which are non threaded.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : If I do what I'm thinking of +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : If I do what I'm thinking of doing then each lib will have its own KSE group.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">MD</strong> : stdio does not have to be +<p><strong class="speaker">dillon</strong> : stdio does not have to be thread aware if you don't schedule preemptively. It all matters where it blocks.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : Since you're a non-threaded +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : Since you're a non-threaded program you don't know that.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : If you're going to support +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : If you're going to support that, libc has to support threads.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : It sounds like some +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : It sounds like some complexity goes away. Can we use 1 libc with has threading?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : Do we want to go down this +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : Do we want to go down this path?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : Now or later?</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : Now or later?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : What do I design now to do +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : What do I design now to do this?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JB</strong> : For example libc_r does not +<p><strong class="speaker">jhb</strong> : For example libc_r does not work with rfork.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : The answer is that yes we +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : The answer is that yes we should move forward. Tricky issues, signals...</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">WL</strong> : Have people talked about +<p><strong class="speaker">warner</strong> : Have people talked about pthread programs and cancellation points?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : The pthreads library does not +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : The pthreads library does not assume that you're only going to change threads at yield() points. We are going to have cancellation points. There is an unimplemented call which will be able to send a thread targeted signal even into the kernel.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : When a thread is scheduled +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : When a thread is scheduled onto a KSE there is a mailbox that the userland thread scheduler updates.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : Is there anyone else who has +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : Is there anyone else who has some time or test it? How many people should test this before I check it in? There is a patch that's continuously updated on my web site to be able to patch it to -CURRENT. There is a CVSUP target from cvsup @@ -201,25 +209,25 @@ be able to patch it to -CURRENT. There freefal there is a pointer there to a web page that explains how to CVSUP from source.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : What about SMP locking for +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : What about SMP locking for this?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : Handled by the proc locking. +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : Handled by the proc locking. Has not been tried on SMP machines yet.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">DO</strong> : What about on Sparc?</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">obrien</strong> : What about on Sparc?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : You may need to stub things +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : You may need to stub things out.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JB</strong> : Is the paper on the web site?</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">jhb</strong> : Is the paper on the web site?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : The updated copy has disappeared.</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : The updated copy has disappeared.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">??</strong> : What's the different between +<p><strong class="speaker">unknown</strong> : What's the different between NetBSD and FreeBSD on this?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : Logically not a tremendous +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : Logically not a tremendous difference but Net follows the paper closely and Free takes the idea and makes it into a production system. There were some tough battles on -arch about this. The tricky point is that the proc structure has @@ -231,10 +239,10 @@ end we ended up breaking up the proc str overwhelm the CPU when scheduling threads. This is the major difference.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : I greatly admire the NetBSD +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : I greatly admire the NetBSD way which is to take an idea and not dilute it.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : Net is also putting a Solaris +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : Net is also putting a Solaris compatible threads package on top of their scheduler activations in the Solaris ABI.</p> </div> @@ -247,17 +255,17 @@ the Solaris ABI.</p> <div class="discussion"> -<p><strong class="speaker">JB</strong> : Yesterday we talked about SMP +<p><strong class="speaker">jhb</strong> : Yesterday we talked about SMP related things so I'll give a summary and then give a list of things for 5.0.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JB</strong> : The big thing for 5.0 is to +<p><strong class="speaker">jhb</strong> : The big thing for 5.0 is to get the network stack out from under Giant.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JB</strong> : Jefferey Xu and Jennifer Ying +<p><strong class="speaker">jhb</strong> : Jefferey Xu and Jennifer Ying were here to talk about this. They have the PCBs checked in now.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JY</strong> : Interface Queues and SynCache +<p><strong class="speaker">jennifer</strong> : Interface Queues and SynCache might be done.</p> </div> @@ -275,95 +283,95 @@ might be done.</p> <div class="discussion"> -<p><strong class="speaker">JB</strong> : Aside from network the newbus +<p><strong class="speaker">jhb</strong> : Aside from network the newbus locking needs to be done (Warner Losh) and also CAM stuff. No known status on CAM. Perhaps CAM is not needed for 5.0</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JB</strong> : Disk drive interrupts? Would +<p><strong class="speaker">jhb</strong> : Disk drive interrupts? Would help performance. Going to talk to Poul Henning-Kamp</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JB</strong> : Alan Cox is working on the VM +<p><strong class="speaker">jhb</strong> : Alan Cox is working on the VM system. Working based on the old Mach stuff. Objective for 5.0 is to get zero fill and execute on write to work without Giant. In future he wants to look at locking down pmap() functions.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JB</strong> : Still some stability issues. +<p><strong class="speaker">jhb</strong> : Still some stability issues. UMA breaks some assumptions. For instance sockets assume that once memory is a socket its a socket forever, this is no longer true.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JB</strong> : Talked to Mike Smith about +<p><strong class="speaker">jhb</strong> : Talked to Mike Smith about 5.0 and have decided to stop adding features so that we can start clean up 5.0 and make it a real release. This might require hacks.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : For example in the UMA case +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : For example in the UMA case there could be a flag to just say "don't reclaim this zone" -- this would help with issues such as the socket code assuming memory is type stable.</p> -<p>Over to AC on the VM system. Nothing to say.</p> +<p>Over to alc on the VM system. Nothing to say.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">BM</strong> : As much as I might get hated +<p><strong class="speaker">bmilekic</strong> : As much as I might get hated for this. Will preemption stuff go in by 5.0?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JB</strong> :No, that's a 6.0 thing. There +<p><strong class="speaker">jhb</strong> :No, that's a 6.0 thing. There are things to do first.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">??? Phone</strong> : Could this come in in +<p><strong class="speaker">unknown</strong> : Could this come in in the life time of 5.? 5.1?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : This is a release issue really.</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : This is a release issue really.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JB</strong> : Yes, the kernel is pre-emptive.</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">jhb</strong> : Yes, the kernel is pre-emptive.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : Perhaps we should talk about +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : Perhaps we should talk about is performance goals? What are the comparisons to make? Perhaps head of 4 with head of 5. We'll see a mix.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JB</strong> : I need to run benchmarks.</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">jhb</strong> : I need to run benchmarks.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : In terms of SMP features when +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : In terms of SMP features when will VM be ready to be measured? I can't put a date on it.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">AC</strong> : I think I told John was in +<p><strong class="speaker">alc</strong> : I think I told John was in time for release. I'm already doing performance testing so we've already started.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : We'll pick a date to start +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : We'll pick a date to start doing measurements. Perhaps 2 or 3 weeks from now.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">AC</strong> : My guess is the the locking +<p><strong class="speaker">alc</strong> : My guess is the the locking pmap is going to take some time to shake out. On the other hand the next major module we should be working on is machine dependent level. Last we should try approaching the vmobject level. I'll start worrying about performance in the near term.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : Will threading improve +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : Will threading improve latency or throughput for networking?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">BM</strong> : I would like if we could +<p><strong class="speaker">bmilekic</strong> : I would like if we could actually start before.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : Do you have a timeline for +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : Do you have a timeline for the interrupt threading stuff?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">BM</strong> : I finished some things last +<p><strong class="speaker">bmilekic</strong> : I finished some things last night but there are still issues. In a couple of weeks it should be ready for first commit.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : Informally beginning to +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : Informally beginning to measure performance now. What are the right sets of tests? Need to discuss on -arch.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">AC</strong> : It would be nice to have that +<p><strong class="speaker">alc</strong> : It would be nice to have that committed to the tools directory.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JB</strong> : The statistics analysis +<p><strong class="speaker">jhb</strong> : The statistics analysis package are we using.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">BM</strong> : I have some good success with +<p><strong class="speaker">bmilekic</strong> : I have some good success with netpipe for overall measurement.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : Need to be using consistent +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : Need to be using consistent compilers because of the compiler change. Also all our debugging stuff will slow down the benchmarking.</p> </div> @@ -401,11 +409,11 @@ stuff will slow down the benchmarking.</ <div class="discussion"> -<p><strong class="speaker">MD</strong> : Debug stuff on 5.0. I think +<p><strong class="speaker">dillon</strong> : Debug stuff on 5.0. I think it might be reasonable then to take the space hit and always have the debugging in but turn it on and off with sysctl.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : We should commit an optimized +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : We should commit an optimized kernel configuration and benchmarking guidlines to the tree as well.</p> </div> @@ -414,85 +422,85 @@ well.</p> <div class="discussion"> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : I think we should continue +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : I think we should continue the performance discussion. We want to accomplish a couple of things. One is stability measurement. What are the things we need to be measuring? What is our definition of useful?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">Jefferey</strong> : End to end measurement +<p><strong class="speaker">hsu</strong> : End to end measurement with gigabit cards. For latency test connections per second. Can use ttcp or netbench in ports.</p> <p><strong class="speaker">gnn</strong> : need to make sure we run against all of 4.6</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : Need to really have 3 tests. +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : Need to really have 3 tests. 4.6 (forever) 4.x (following updates) and -CURRENT.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : There are other dimensions. +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : There are other dimensions. Degree of parallelism for instance. We might see degradation in uni but get good stuff in multi case.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : Test for impact of KSE +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : Test for impact of KSE complications as well.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">AP</strong> : I think as the results come +<p><strong class="speaker">alfred</strong> : I think as the results come through people should not be too worried about it. Perhaps we should benchmark database type stuff as well. Need to do something comprehensive.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">DO</strong> : What does the test matrix +<p><strong class="speaker">obrien</strong> : What does the test matrix look like? Different architectures and different numbers of processors.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : Can we make a multi-processor +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : Can we make a multi-processor run uni-procesor.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">AP</strong> : Run queue and scheduler stuff?</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">alfred</strong> : Run queue and scheduler stuff?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : Will talk to Alfred.</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : Will talk to Alfred.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : Is scalability testing important?</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : Is scalability testing important?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">DavidM</strong> : NFS testing.</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">obrienM</strong> : NFS testing.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : What about UI testing?</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : What about UI testing?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JX</strong> : x11perf is the way to do that.</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">hsu</strong> : x11perf is the way to do that.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">MD</strong> : Currently we have a directory +<p><strong class="speaker">dillon</strong> : Currently we have a directory for regression tests, should we do one for performance tests?</p> <p><strong class="speaker">gnn</strong> : talk to sleepycat for DB tests, see if they have some</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">AP</strong> : Really nice to tests DB +<p><strong class="speaker">alfred</strong> : Really nice to tests DB applications that are heavily thread dependent.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">Jefferey</strong> :Apache 2 has threads.</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">hsu</strong> :Apache 2 has threads.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : What about commercial folks? +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : What about commercial folks? What do you do.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">Paul Saab</strong> : Normally what we end +<p><strong class="speaker">ps</strong> : Normally what we end up doing is using the snapshot on some machines and see if the bugs are out. There is no performance testing really.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : Again, what about performance?</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : Again, what about performance?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">Paul Saab</strong> : We've really never had +<p><strong class="speaker">ps</strong> : We've really never had one. It's more just bugs. We've just never found the performance to be a problem.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : We need to create a forum for +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : We need to create a forum for talking about performance. We need reproducible test cases.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">Paul Saab</strong> : There's also other +<p><strong class="speaker">ps</strong> : There's also other things. We've been doing lots of looking at this. FreeBSD gets kicked down by attacks for instance. We have a lot of tools to get to the project though.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : I will set up the mailing list.</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : I will set up the mailing list.</p> </div> </div> @@ -505,15 +513,15 @@ the project though.</p> <div class="discussion"> -<p><strong class="speaker">JB</strong> : Questions about alpha?</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">jhb</strong> : Questions about alpha?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : KSE on alpha?</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : KSE on alpha?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : We have patches so it +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : We have patches so it compiles and runs non-KSE programs. You can have the patched version of the alpha kernel up and running though.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : Is the task owned of making +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : Is the task owned of making this work on Alpha?</p> </div> @@ -522,29 +530,29 @@ this work on Alpha?</p> <div class="discussion"> -<p><strong class="speaker">DR</strong> : It works as far as I get to +<p><strong class="speaker">dfr</strong> : It works as far as I get to use it. It's not used in production right now.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">PS</strong> : Intel shipped me a quad +<p><strong class="speaker">ps</strong> : Intel shipped me a quad processor IA64 board. (McKinley is the name of the board).</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : What does it need for 5.0?</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : What does it need for 5.0?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">DR</strong> : It works, it works for SMP. +<p><strong class="speaker">dfr</strong> : It works, it works for SMP. Self hosts, build worlds. sysinstall compiles but needs more kicking to work.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">Paul Saab</strong> : Intel wants us to ship +<p><strong class="speaker">ps</strong> : Intel wants us to ship a CD.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">DR</strong> : There is no thread support +<p><strong class="speaker">dfr</strong> : There is no thread support right now (threading library needs to move to get/setcontext rather than longjmp).</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">DR</strong> : Need to move every driver to +<p><strong class="speaker">dfr</strong> : Need to move every driver to use BUS DMA for large memory machines to get bounce buffers.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JB</strong> : PHK is working on using a new +<p><strong class="speaker">jhb</strong> : PHK is working on using a new libwhisk so that sysinstall et al work on all systems.</p> </div> @@ -553,99 +561,99 @@ libwhisk so that sysinstall et al work o <div class="discussion"> -<p><strong class="speaker">Jake B</strong> : Take control of KSE stuff +<p><strong class="speaker">jake</strong> : Take control of KSE stuff on Sparc 64.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : Do we have a Sparc 64 in the +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : Do we have a Sparc 64 in the cluster?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">Jake B</strong> : It's not in the cluster +<p><strong class="speaker">jake</strong> : It's not in the cluster yet. It's a serial cluster issue.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : Package building on S64?</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : Package building on S64?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">Jake B</strong> : Perhaps a bunch of Ultra +<p><strong class="speaker">jake</strong> : Perhaps a bunch of Ultra 60s for a package build.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">David</strong> : 1500 build right now?</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">obrien</strong> : 1500 build right now?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">Jake B</strong> : Yes, but a lot of the +<p><strong class="speaker">jake</strong> : Yes, but a lot of the same bug in packages are broken.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JB</strong> : Timeline for X?</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">jhb</strong> : Timeline for X?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">Jake B</strong> : Not really.</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">jake</strong> : Not really.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : In terms of 5.0 how +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : In terms of 5.0 how comfortable are you?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">Jake B</strong> : sysinstall is the only problem.</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">jake</strong> : sysinstall is the only problem.</p> </div> <h3>PowerPC</h3> <div class="discussion"> -<p><strong class="speaker">Benno Rice</strong> : I got it up to +<p><strong class="speaker">benno</strong> : I got it up to execing a fake init in the simulator and printing "hello world". Trying to work with real hardware. I now have some semblance of busdma and am working on other stuff. GEM on iMac is in an embryonic state. Should get to NFS mount in a few weeks.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : How do you feel about your +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : How do you feel about your timeline?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">Benno</strong> : I'm not sure we'll have +<p><strong class="speaker">benno</strong> : I'm not sure we'll have something fully workable for 5.0.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : You're not at the point yet +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : You're not at the point yet on working on KSE are you?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">Benno</strong> : No, need a useful system +<p><strong class="speaker">benno</strong> : No, need a useful system first.</p> </div> -<h3>AMD64</h3> +<h3>Adillon64</h3> <div class="discussion"> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : I know that we're having +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : I know that we're having simulator problems.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">DO</strong> : The issues are about legal -and NDA. AMD decided on <a href="http://www.freebsdmall.com">FreeBSD +<p><strong class="speaker">obrien</strong> : The issues are about legal +and NDA. Adillon decided on <a href="http://www.freebsdmall.com">FreeBSD Mall</a> as the NDA person. I have not had a working simulator since September.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">Paul</strong> : I can make that happen, as +<p><strong class="speaker">ps</strong> : I can make that happen, as well as real hardware.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">DO</strong> :I've got a cross tool chain in +<p><strong class="speaker">obrien</strong> :I've got a cross tool chain in the tree. I have some untested pmap stuff. Hardware has been available for a month or so. We could boot FreeBSD 4.6 today if only we had hardware.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : What do you think about 5.0? +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : What do you think about 5.0? Should we discuss that at another date?</p> </div> -<h3>MIPS</h3> +<h3>MIps</h3> <div class="discussion"> -<p><strong class="speaker">???</strong> :Juniper offered.</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">unknown</strong> :Juniper offered.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">DO</strong> : But we have no hardware.</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">obrien</strong> : But we have no hardware.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">???</strong> :Juniper thinks it's OK but +<p><strong class="speaker">unknown</strong> :Juniper thinks it's OK but doesn't want to have it rot in the tree.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">BD</strong> : I have a line on a company +<p><strong class="speaker">brooks</strong> : I have a line on a company that does compact PCI with R6Ks.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : We're waiting for someone to +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : We're waiting for someone to turn up.</p> </div> @@ -660,43 +668,43 @@ LUNCH <a name="trust"></a> <h2>Trusted BSD</h2> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : MAC framework is what is of +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : Malc framework is what is of interest today.</p> <em>See Slides from Robert</em> <div class="discussion"> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : Are the labels the same on +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : Are the labels the same on all structures?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : You can modify this but there +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : You can modify this but there are issues with memory: is the space needed for a label too large to add to an mbuf header, for example? The label is small, but there area lot of them?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">BM</strong> : When you're freeing the mbuf +<p><strong class="speaker">bmilekic</strong> : When you're freeing the mbuf do you write the label data?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : We blank it when we free it.</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : We blank it when we free it.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">BM</strong> : I do not think the 36 bytes +<p><strong class="speaker">bmilekic</strong> : I do not think the 36 bytes in the mbuf header is a problem.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : I'm more interested in the +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : I'm more interested in the "why" than the how.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : A lot of people are +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : A lot of people are interested in this. Some of the things that do interest a lot of people are things like doing on the fly security for a web server.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : Is there a black hatted TLA +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : Is there a black hatted TLA interested?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : Yes and several gov'ts. As +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : Yes and several gov'ts. As well as plenty of financial folks.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : There's a lot of userland +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : There's a lot of userland stuff that's not done yet.</p> </div> </div> @@ -706,171 +714,171 @@ stuff that's not done yet.</p> <a name="releng"></a> <h2>Release Engineering</h2> -<p><strong class="speaker">MS</strong> : Shows a slide of releases. +<p><strong class="speaker">murray</strong> : Shows a slide of releases. 4.6 is ready to go but having issues with ISO images. DP1, a lot of goals were met. 1000 packages were building on -CURRENT to get DP1 out. Polished 4.2. We need to start making decisions on 5.0. November is still the date we're shooting for. We're going to do a 4.7 and a 4.8. DP3?</p> -<p>***GET SLIDE FROM MURRAY***</p> +<p>***GET samIDE FROM MURRAY***</p> <div class="discussion"> -<p><strong class="speaker">MS</strong> : Release engineering area of +<p><strong class="speaker">murray</strong> : Release engineering area of the web site www.freebsd.org/releng. For DP2 question about p4 or CVS? Will probably use p4 for DP2 as well. USB subsystem? Perl removal? KSE?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : KSE should be able to run +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : KSE should be able to run simple tests.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">DO</strong> : Is whatever you have +<p><strong class="speaker">obrien</strong> : Is whatever you have committed by DP2 be the same as the release.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : It will be a subset.</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : It will be a subset.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">MS</strong> : What will the status be of +<p><strong class="speaker">murray</strong> : What will the status be of KSE in userland for 5.0?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : Can't answer that right +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : Can't answer that right now. We're not removing the old libraries. The userland work will happen between DP2 and release. The next step is MP as well as UP.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">DO</strong> : Are we heading for a release?</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">obrien</strong> : Are we heading for a release?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">MS</strong> : yes.</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">murray</strong> : yes.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">DO</strong> : Then we have to stop having +<p><strong class="speaker">obrien</strong> : Then we have to stop having major commits.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">MS</strong> : Yes, the discussion today is +<p><strong class="speaker">murray</strong> : Yes, the discussion today is what are the major must have features.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : We need to decide if there +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : We need to decide if there are major upcoming problems and reduce risk on things like KSE.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : That's why I want to get MS 3 +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : That's why I want to get murray 3 in now.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : Do you think that KSE related +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : Do you think that KSE related changes from later milestones are going to be isolated to KSE or pervasive?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : Hard to say. My guess is -that MS 4 stuff should be less pervasive.</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : Hard to say. My guess is +that murray 4 stuff should be less pervasive.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : What happens if KSE just +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : What happens if KSE just doesn't work?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : Well it does work, the +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : Well it does work, the patches work, it's a question of risk. We need to check on new things, like locking two threads in the same process.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">MD</strong> : KSEs only become fragile when +<p><strong class="speaker">dillon</strong> : KSEs only become fragile when pthread uses them. That's the turning point.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">DO</strong> : I'd like the rules for the +<p><strong class="speaker">obrien</strong> : I'd like the rules for the rest of the summer, I hope we'll talk about that.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">MS</strong> : Earlier is better.</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">murray</strong> : Earlier is better.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JM</strong> : I think the cutoff point for -KSE might be MS 3.</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">mini</strong> : I think the cutoff point for +KSE might be murray 3.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : It's the kind of thing where +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : It's the kind of thing where if we need to back out we can.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : If you're not going to run +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : If you're not going to run KSEs then you're OK.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : I think it's low risk. Let's +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : I think it's low risk. Let's avoid the risk is the message.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : The next DP2 (where we'd like -MS4).</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : The next DP2 (where we'd like +murray4).</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">AP</strong> : We really need KSE so all +<p><strong class="speaker">alfred</strong> : We really need KSE so all this concern about stuff that no one really uses is not a big deal. People just need to play catch up. We have performance problems and we need to solve those.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">DO</strong> : We quickly need to figure out +<p><strong class="speaker">obrien</strong> : We quickly need to figure out our policy on multiple archs.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : I briefly want to respond to +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : I briefly want to respond to Alfred. We have asserted that KSE will be experimental. It will be in and 5.0 will go out but there might be issues.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JB</strong> : Realistically for the network +<p><strong class="speaker">jhb</strong> : Realistically for the network stack is that IPv4 sockets will not be giant. But this is only in the network stack world. Several people are working on it.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : The GEOM stuff will be +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : The GEOM stuff will be enabled by default in 5.0. Sparc depends on it. I do not know what the impediments are to that though.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : The kernel stuff is there but +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : The kernel stuff is there but the user space is not. It can't become the default until everything is there.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">WL</strong> : What level of control are you +<p><strong class="speaker">warner</strong> : What level of control are you going to exercise over the tree in the coming months?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">MS</strong> : You're going to see more +<p><strong class="speaker">murray</strong> : You're going to see more level of control but we expect the requests to be reasonable. It's a very open process.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JB</strong> : How are we going to address the 5/6 split? +<p><strong class="speaker">jhb</strong> : How are we going to address the 5/6 split? -<p><strong class="speaker">MS</strong> : Carefully is all I can +<p><strong class="speaker">murray</strong> : Carefully is all I can say.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : For 5. 0 we need to have a +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : For 5. 0 we need to have a more informed decision. The release engineers will be trying to reduce the number of large code changes more as time goes by. We don't have to wait for 5.x to be perfectly stable before we branch.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">MS</strong> : Let's move it to more general +<p><strong class="speaker">murray</strong> : Let's move it to more general discussion of DP2? Specific technologies.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">BM</strong> : Is there a strategy to lock +<p><strong class="speaker">bmilekic</strong> : Is there a strategy to lock other protocols that are not locked down onw?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">DO</strong> : How much more do we need to +<p><strong class="speaker">obrien</strong> : How much more do we need to do before 5.0?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JB</strong> : Bug fixing is what we're doing.</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">jhb</strong> : Bug fixing is what we're doing.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : The answer on the network +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : The answer on the network stack. We need to choose a strategy on how to handle the other protocols.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">DO</strong> : The crux is that socket +<p><strong class="speaker">obrien</strong> : The crux is that socket locking must be in 5.0.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : There are 2 or 3 problems. +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : There are 2 or 3 problems. Routing code is a problem. See earlier discussions.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">Doug</strong> : RCng is essentially done. +<p><strong class="speaker">dfr</strong> : RCng is essentially done. What it needs is testers.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">AP</strong> : What about libh (I think libh +<p><strong class="speaker">alfred</strong> : What about libh (I think libh is wrong but this is what I heard)?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JB</strong> : It's very far along but not a +<p><strong class="speaker">jhb</strong> : It's very far along but not a 5.0 thing.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">WL</strong> : Problems with interrupt -routing in ACPCI?</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">warner</strong> : Problems with interrupt +routing in alcPCI?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">Watanabe</strong> : Cannot handle PCI PCI +<p><strong class="speaker">takawata</strong> : Cannot handle PCI PCI interrupt routing. Many 802.11x have this problem.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : Is it a problem from Intel?</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : Is it a problem from Intel?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">Watanabe</strong> : This is not an Intel +<p><strong class="speaker">takawata</strong> : This is not an Intel problem but a problem on our side. PCI PCI routing code should be added. New code is necessary.</p> @@ -879,12 +887,12 @@ Whiteboard UFS2 rcNG KSE M3 CAM SMPng -GEOM TrustedBSD MAC BusDMA Newbus SMPng +GEOM TrustedBSD Malc BusDMA Newbus SMPng C++ Cardbus libwhisk/sysinstall KOBJ? (no!) sparc64 -Perl Removal ACPI Alpha SMP Stability Pkgs for +Perl Removal alcPI Alpha SMP Stability Pkgs for sparc64, IA64 devd PCI intr route document hints release docs @@ -892,26 +900,26 @@ devd PCI intr route document hints rel platform </pre> -<p><strong class="speaker">???</strong> : Firewire?</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">unknown</strong> : Firewire?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : What hardware shipping on +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : What hardware shipping on IA64?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">DR</strong> : Intel stuff</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">dfr</strong> : Intel stuff</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : What about on Sparc64?</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : What about on Sparc64?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">DO</strong> : Very limited (hme...)</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">obrien</strong> : Very limited (hme...)</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : KOBJ extensions discussed at +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : KOBJ extensions discussed at BSDCon?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">WL</strong> : Not sure, probably not for +<p><strong class="speaker">warner</strong> : Not sure, probably not for 5.0. Pervasive, so no.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : How broken is C++?</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : How broken is C++?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">DO</strong> : Only on sparc64. Don't +<p><strong class="speaker">obrien</strong> : Only on sparc64. Don't really know yet, but it's probably a library issue. The compiler is a pre-release snapshot. The diffs are now getting large from May 5 to now. We should attempt to be as far along this gcc branch as possible @@ -929,60 +937,60 @@ come release.</p> <div class="discussion"> -<p><strong class="speaker">GT</strong> : Talking about rc.d stuff. +<p><strong class="speaker">gordon</strong> : Talking about rc.d stuff. Import from NetBSD. Right now we have patches out there that are translated from the current boot order. It's in perforce. After the conference it will go into the mainline. Single toggle for booting.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : How in sync are the bits in +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : How in sync are the bits in the new stuff with the old stuff.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">GT</strong> : Last patch is from June 3rd, +<p><strong class="speaker">gordon</strong> : Last patch is from June 3rd, but it's tracking closely.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : What is the schedule for +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : What is the schedule for committing to the main tree.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">GT</strong> : We have large patches so +<p><strong class="speaker">gordon</strong> : We have large patches so we're going to re-import from NetBSD.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : How about you have it done by +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : How about you have it done by July 1?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">GT</strong> : We could probably do that. +<p><strong class="speaker">gordon</strong> : We could probably do that. Definitely want to be in DP2.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">GS</strong> : How long will we keep the old +<p><strong class="speaker">gshapiro</strong> : How long will we keep the old stuff for?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">GT</strong> : We'll keep them both in for a +<p><strong class="speaker">gordon</strong> : We'll keep them both in for a while. Not more than 1.5 months though.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : Have you had a look at all at +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : Have you had a look at all at the Mac OS/X startup code?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">GT</strong> : No.</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">gordon</strong> : No.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : Do you deal with dependencies?</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : Do you deal with dependencies?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">GT</strong> : There is meta data in each +<p><strong class="speaker">gordon</strong> : There is meta data in each script that says what needs what. There is a program that orders everything correctly.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">???</strong> : How does this effect the rc +<p><strong class="speaker">unknown</strong> : How does this effect the rc script for ports install?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">GT</strong> : We could make this available +<p><strong class="speaker">gordon</strong> : We could make this available to ports but won't on the first version.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">AP</strong> : Can I recommend that you +<p><strong class="speaker">alfred</strong> : Can I recommend that you recommend this to ports?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">GT</strong> : Yes, the problem is that we +<p><strong class="speaker">gordon</strong> : Yes, the problem is that we have so many ports.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : The reason for this is for +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : The reason for this is for rebundlers of FreeBSD in their environments. We don't have to have it for DP2 but it should be an ultimate goal. We might need to have a policy statement on this. That at date X all ports must use the new @@ -998,128 +1006,129 @@ system.</p> <div class="discussion"> -<p><strong class="speaker">SL</strong> : I've been working on hardware +<p><strong class="speaker">sam</strong> : I've been working on hardware crypto. I'm looking for consensus on getting hardware crypto in the kernel. This will not happen in 5.0.</p> <h3>Syscall vector change for 64bits</h3> -<p><strong class="speaker">MD</strong> : Two ways to go. Need to +<p><strong class="speaker">dillon</strong> : Two ways to go. Need to create a new syscall vector. The other is to do a 1 off replacement. Prefer the former.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : Perhaps we need to create a +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : Perhaps we need to create a FreeBSD 5 syscall vector. Could be a new ABI.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : Aren't there enough other numbers?</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : Aren't there enough other numbers?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : That's one way to look at it +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : That's one way to look at it and other platforms have done that? Is that too heavy weight?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : It sounds that way to me. +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : It sounds that way to me. You end up having to replicate the old ones into the new one.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">MD</strong> : The issue is about pollution.</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">dillon</strong> : The issue is about pollution.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">DR</strong> : Seems like too much work for 5.x</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">dfr</strong> : Seems like too much work for 5.x</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : It's more work. There are +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : It's more work. There are now two places. Why not talk to OpenBSD?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : Should there be a BSD API? +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : Should there be a BSD alfredI? Tough to do across projects.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">DO</strong> : Who here is going to see that +<p><strong class="speaker">obrien</strong> : Who here is going to see that through? We have not talked to NetBSD about even SMP.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">AP</strong> : Does changing the syscall +<p><strong class="speaker">alfred</strong> : Does changing the syscall table allow us to do clean up?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : We could do that without +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : We could do that without doing 64bit syscall table.</p> <h3>5.x ABI stability</h3> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : There are new functions in +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : There are new functions in 5.x. At what point do we stop changing?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">DR</strong> : When people start really using it.</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">dfr</strong> : When people start really using it.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : How do we tell? How did Solaris do it?</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : How do we tell? How did Solaris do it?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">Everyone</strong> : Know one knows.</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">Everyone</strong> : No one knows.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">DR</strong> : It's too hard to add a +<p><strong class="speaker">dfr</strong> : It's too hard to add a syscall vector. Library issues are a problem.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">DO</strong> : We can use ELF to handle that.</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">obrien</strong> : We can use ELF to handle that.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">DR</strong> : Let's just add 20 new +<p><strong class="speaker">dfr</strong> : Let's just add 20 new syscalls instead of adding new work that we don't really really need.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : Punt on lack of time to do +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : Punt on lack of time to do this.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">MD</strong> : I see DO's point with the +<p><strong class="speaker">dillon</strong> : I see obrien's point with the libraries but I have done this with time_t at 64 bits.</p> <h3>devd</h3> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : The devd stuff was to +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : The devd stuff was to integrate cardbus, newbus, etc.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : To monitor requests to mount +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : To monitor requests to mount or create new devices.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : Is this a 5.0 requirement? +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : Is this a 5.0 requirement? Is there anyone to do this?</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">GT (from IRC)</strong> : PHK has patches +<!-- Which Gordon was this ? --> +<p><strong class="speaker">gordon (from IRC)</strong> : PHK has patches that make having devd unnecessary.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">BD</strong> : Need something that does what +<p><strong class="speaker">brooks</strong> : Need something that does what pccardd did. </p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : Need to be able to do this +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : Need to be able to do this through a file. </p> -<p><strong class="speaker">WL</strong> : (from IRC): That's a 6.0 +<p><strong class="speaker">warner</strong> : (from IRC): That's a 6.0 feature.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : It would not be a large step +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : It would not be a large step to put something in the middle to handle this.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : Sometime in the 5 lifetime we +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : Sometime in the 5 lifetime we need this.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">WL</strong> : There is no way to monitor +<p><strong class="speaker">warner</strong> : There is no way to monitor events in newbus but it would be easy to add.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : I'm not sure I understood you +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : I'm not sure I understood you correctly.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">WL</strong> : What happens now in a PCI is +<p><strong class="speaker">warner</strong> : What happens now in a PCI is that it makes a call to pci_get_devid() and the driver would say "yes I am " or "no I'm not" so you'd have to change each of the busses to do this but that's not too tough because we have a small # of busses.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JB</strong> : Mike Smith gave us an +<p><strong class="speaker">jhb</strong> : Mike Smith gave us an informal tour of OS/X. OS/X uses XML to do this. They have the DEVID in XML.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">BD</strong> : I looked at some PCI drivers +<p><strong class="speaker">brooks</strong> : I looked at some PCI drivers and some work that way but some don't.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">JE</strong> : It seems to me we need to not +<p><strong class="speaker">julian</strong> : It seems to me we need to not have to modify every single driver. If you've got a device that's not supported you ask all drivers. At the point when you run out you make an outcall. The outcall returns does a substitution.</p> -<p><strong class="speaker">RW</strong> : Time up, time to wrap up.</p> +<p><strong class="speaker">rwatson</strong> : Time up, time to wrap up.</p> </div> &footer; >Release-Note: >Audit-Trail: >Unformatted: To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-www" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020907184146.8ECB04D6>