From owner-cvs-all Thu Dec 7 14:35: 5 2000 From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 7 14:35:00 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from cheddar.netmonger.net (cheddar.netmonger.net [209.54.21.140]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC23137B400; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 14:34:59 -0800 (PST) Received: (from chris@localhost) by cheddar.netmonger.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA22788; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 17:34:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <20001207173453.A18103@netmonger.net> Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 17:34:53 -0500 From: Christopher Masto To: "Daniel C. Sobral" , Alfred Perlstein Cc: Daniel Eischen , "David O'Brien" , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/vm phys_pager.c References: <20001205145908.K8051@fw.wintelcom.net> <20001205152054.M8051@fw.wintelcom.net> <3A2EFBC4.EE8D90B1@newsguy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.91.1i In-Reply-To: <3A2EFBC4.EE8D90B1@newsguy.com>; from Daniel C. Sobral on Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 11:53:56AM +0900 Sender: chris@cheddar.netmonger.net Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 11:53:56AM +0900, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: > Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > > And who exactly would bump into this problem except me? > > God, how many times was the world broken because of a mistake during > commit, a missing file, a different version being committed than the one > intended, a last minute addition that couldn't possibly go wrong (and > was anyway), etc? > > I'm about to violate mailing lists charter, but I think it is > appropriate here. object = vm_object_allocate(OBJT_PHYS, - OFF_TO_IDX(foff + size)); + OFF_TO_IDX(foff + PAGE_MASK + size)); Honestly, this thread is ridiculous. If the code didn't work in the first place, AND nobody noticed because it's so rarely used, AND the change is _obviously_ trivial, then what's the problem here? "stable" is not "immobile". Even if this fix was wrong (and apparently it was), it doesn't change the fact that it was: 1. A fix for code that was known to be unusably broken 2. Extremely unlikely to hurt anything (esp. given #1) 3. Extremely unlikely to break the world (obvious by inspection) 4. Trivially reversible You've got the right argument, but you've picked the wrong example to apply it to. There has to be _some_ flexibility in the rules, and it would be hard to find a better example of where "shakeout in -current" has no value. -- Christopher Masto Senior Network Monkey NetMonger Communications chris@netmonger.net info@netmonger.net http://www.netmonger.net Free yourself, free your machine, free the daemon -- http://www.freebsd.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message