From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 15 01:36:21 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F151516A4CE for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2004 01:36:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from flash.atmos.colostate.edu (flash.atmos.colostate.edu [129.82.48.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B24CB43D39 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 2004 01:36:20 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tarcieri@flash.atmos.colostate.edu) Received: from flash.atmos.colostate.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) iBF1aIFp011538 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 18:36:18 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from tarcieri@flash.atmos.colostate.edu) Received: (from tarcieri@localhost) by flash.atmos.colostate.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id iBF1aIqk011537 for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 18:36:18 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from tarcieri) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 18:36:17 -0700 From: Tony Arcieri To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20041215013617.GA11420@flash.atmos.colostate.edu> References: <20041214222444.GA9668@flash.atmos.colostate.edu> <3308.192.168.1.9.1103065723.squirrel@192.168.1.9> <20041215001222.GB9957@flash.atmos.colostate.edu> <3683.192.168.1.9.1103072060.squirrel@192.168.1.9> <41BF9130.9070907@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41BF9130.9070907@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern sched_ule.c (fwd) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 01:36:21 -0000 On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 06:19:44PM -0700, Scott Long wrote: > >I think removing the #error and putting a note on boot (and in UPDATING) > >that it may still be unstable is a good idea. However, Scott Long has > >expressed reservations > >(http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2004-December/044341.html) > >and his opinion counts orders of magnitude more than mine. > > > >Jon > > > > I'm definitely not against these fixes going into RELENG_5, but I would > like to see some significant testing be applied to them in HEAD first, > especially to changes that are not confined to just sched_ule.c (and > sched_4bsd.c). > > Scott Glad to hear it. So far hacking the ULE scheduler code from -CURRENT into the RELENG_5 sources myself seems to be working, but I would very much appreciate seeing these changes merged into RELENG_5 as soon as they can be adequately tested. Tony Arcieri