From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 10 01:32:45 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2E7116A4BF for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2003 01:32:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.mho.com (smtp.mho.net [64.58.4.6]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DEFB343FBD for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2003 01:32:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Received: (qmail 72336 invoked by uid 1002); 10 Sep 2003 08:32:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.4.1.5?) (64.58.1.252) by smtp.mho.net with SMTP; 10 Sep 2003 08:32:44 -0000 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 02:33:59 -0600 (MDT) From: Scott Long X-X-Sender: scottl@pooker.samsco.home To: Doug Rabson In-Reply-To: <1063181264.43759.6.camel@herring.nlsystems.com> Message-ID: <20030910022914.F80075@pooker.samsco.home> References: <1063106587.25817.23.camel@builder02.qubesoft.com> <1063181264.43759.6.camel@herring.nlsystems.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: arch@freebsd.org cc: "M. Warner Losh" Subject: Re: When to burn those bridges X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 08:32:45 -0000 On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, Doug Rabson wrote: > On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 02:03, M. Warner Losh wrote: > > If there's a really compelling reason (and this would be it), we can > > burn some bridges early. I wouldn't hold up your development based on > > these bridges being in harm's way. Others in the BSDcon terminal room > > are saying "do it now, screw waiting for 6". If you can get it done > > and solid, I'd do it before the branch. The drivers in harm's way > > either have out of tree replacements, or aren't that important, or > > need to be redone and this is a good excuse. > > If I commit this work to -current now, it will break ABI compatibility > with 5.1-RELEASE. When is the ABI for 5.x suppose to be frozen? Does it > matter if I break the 5.1 ABI in current? For what its worth, this > change will also make the kobj method dispatch SMP safe (without locks). The 5.x ABI and API will not be stable until 5.3. This work looks very encouraging; please go ahead and do what you need to do to implement it. I'm not sure if Justin has any thoughts on your approach or if he cares to revive his newbus work, but you might want to check with him just to be sure. Scott