Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:24:47 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Miguel Mendez <flynn@energyhq.es.eu.org> Cc: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: HEADS UP: ULE off in 5.3 Message-ID: <20041026072447.GA47940@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20041026085627.008f8f7e.flynn@energyhq.es.eu.org> References: <417DB5E1.7000308@freebsd.org> <20041026085627.008f8f7e.flynn@energyhq.es.eu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 08:56:27AM +0200, Miguel Mendez wrote: > On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 20:26:41 -0600 > Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> wrote: >=20 > > A lot of poeple have noted recently that a lot of bug reports are > > coming in with strange symptoms, and only after a lot of detective > > work does it turn out that the submitter is using the ULE scheduler. >=20 > What are the short term plans for ULE? I understand turning it off for > RELENG_5, so I take it will be tested in HEAD? ULE has many nice > features and it would be a shame that it wasn't tested well enough so > that bugs can eventually be fixed. At this point further testing isn't necessary or useful, since it's *known* to have several serious bugs. What's needed at this point is someone who can take the code in hand, fix those problems, and maintain the code on an ongoing basis. If that happens, we could think about turning it back on by default. Kris --SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBffu/Wry0BWjoQKURAhkPAJ4wvQoO7D0OyGdlibIT1+ROaQE5AACfT3Zr U7/p0GnpCztUaumoKwpLUd0= =SLFk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041026072447.GA47940>