From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 23 07:44:53 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCDAE16A4CE; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 07:44:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51B7543D1D; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 07:44:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i1NFiqfJ008759; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:44:52 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk) To: John Baldwin From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:45:42 EST." <200402230945.42440.jhb@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:44:52 +0100 Message-ID: <8758.1077551092@critter.freebsd.dk> cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: Scott Long cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/alpha/alpha mem.c promcons.c src/sys/alpha/tlsb zs_tlsb.c src/sys/amd64/amd64 mem.c src/sys/cam cam_xpt.c src/sys/cam/scsi scsi_ch.c scsi_pass.c scsi_pt.c s X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:44:54 -0000 In message <200402230945.42440.jhb@FreeBSD.org>, John Baldwin writes: >On Saturday 21 February 2004 06:13 pm, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> In message <20040221161339.X52892@pooker.samsco.home>, Scott Long writes: >> >> A grace period is not possible, that is why I have been so vocal >> >> with my heads-up messages to current for the last two weeks. >> > >> >What are the technical reasons for a grace period not being possible? >> >> The signflip on the GIANT flag. > >Which was arguably premature given the vast number of NEEDGIANT vs. NOGIANT >case. The MPSAFE flag for interrupts hasn't been flipped yet either for that >reason. I thought the idea was to try to get the API's set up correctly before the RELENG_5 branch so that we do not make MFC'ing impossible a few months after the branchpoing like it happened for 3.x ? At least that was part of my motivation for flipping the flag. Another part is psychological: I think we need to mark the spots that need work done rather than put congratulatory notices in dmesg for the little headway we've done. And for both of these reasons I would advocate that MPSAFE gets flipped before the branch as well. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.