From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 7 01:01:50 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 506E737B401; Mon, 7 Apr 2003 01:01:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sccrmhc02.attbi.com (sccrmhc02.attbi.com [204.127.202.62]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C30243FBF; Mon, 7 Apr 2003 01:01:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from interjet.elischer.org (12-232-168-4.client.attbi.com[12.232.168.4]) by sccrmhc02.attbi.com (sccrmhc02) with ESMTP id <20030407080147002004j9ffe>; Mon, 7 Apr 2003 08:01:48 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA58779; Mon, 7 Apr 2003 01:01:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 01:01:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer To: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20030407.012315.52907595.imp@bsdimp.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG cc: core@FreeBSD.ORG cc: davidxu@FreeBSD.ORG cc: eischen@pcnet1.pcnet.com Subject: Re: KSE signals broken by 1:1 commit. X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 08:01:50 -0000 On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: > Julian Elischer writes: > : We are in a bind.. > : Jeff has committed changes that have broken the KSE view of signals. > : however he is out of the picture for a week now. > : This means that we can not pass our changes past him as we try fix it. > : This is made more difficult because it appears that 1:1 threads is > : broken at the moment, (see mail comments in -current), > > Patches have been posted. Have you tried them yet? > > : so we can not test our changes against the 1:1 threads code. > > This is related to the LAZY stuff that was committed. > > : All I want is a comment that assuming we take care, if jeff gets back > : and finds that we've broken something for him, that we are not > : nailed to a tree for it. > > Jeff's mail said he'd be gone only 3 more days. Things for most > people aren't broken, so there's no need to rush, imho. I also think > Jeff has limited access to the net, so he should be able to review > things. I don't think that there's an urgent need for core to > override the normal workings of the project at this time. See if you > can catch him with this limited access. I'm uneasy about granting an > exception to the rules when I haven't even seen a proposed patch. > > That's just my personal opinion. Actually i thought he was away for longer and I thought he had no access. if he has access we'll try run things past him first.. > > Warner >