From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Oct 11 14:34: 1 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mail11.speakeasy.net (mail11.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.211]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA2BF37B408 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 14:33:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 72135 invoked from network); 11 Oct 2001 21:33:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop.baldwin.cx) ([64.81.54.73]) (envelope-sender ) by mail11.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 11 Oct 2001 21:33:56 -0000 Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.0 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20011011160750.D696@holly.calldei.com> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 14:33:20 -0700 (PDT) From: John Baldwin To: Chris Costello Subject: RE: Merging fdescfs. Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 11-Oct-01 Chris Costello wrote: > There is at least one longstanding bug in the -STABLE > implementation of fdescfs at this point, and since the -CURRENT > code has been around for quite some time now, has had adequate > testing time, and is generally cleaner than the original code, > I'm all for merging the entire thing into -STABLE now that > 4.4-RELEASE has past. I'm not entirely sure, however, if POLA is > a real problem in this case since so obviously few people use it, > and I'd like your feedback as to whether it is or isn't. What are the changes that are visible to the user in the new fdescfs versus the old one? -- John Baldwin -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message