Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 14:53:10 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> To: vadim_nuclight@mail.ru Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: FreeBSD 6.4 and 8.0 EoLs coming soon Message-ID: <4C8627A6.1090308@icyb.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <slrni8c5gj.1eap.vadim_nuclight@kernblitz.nuclight.avtf.net> References: <201009011653.o81Grkm4056064@fire.js.berklix.net> <201009011902.06538.hselasky@c2i.net> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1009051144190.47367@fledge.watson.org> <slrni8c5gj.1eap.vadim_nuclight@kernblitz.nuclight.avtf.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 07/09/2010 13:38 Vadim Goncharov said the following: >> Just to clarify things a little for those following it: the original I4B code >> was removed for entirely practical reasons: it couldn't run without the Giant >> lock, and support for the Giant lock over the network stack was removed. > > But if it was used, removing a component just because of Giant lock is not > practical and is purely ideologic, isn't it? Which part of "support for the Giant lock *over the network stack* was removed" [emphasis mine] do you not understand? The reason is performance for overall network stack, not ideology. BTW, there were advanced notices for users, request for volunteers, etc. So, if you didn't speak up at that time please keep silence now :-) P.S. why is security@ in cc: ? -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C8627A6.1090308>