From owner-cvs-all Fri Nov 10 16:12:26 2000 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (unknown [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E43637B4C5 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:12:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from whenever ([216.152.68.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:11:41 -0800 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Jordan Hubbard" Cc: Subject: RE: cvs commit: src/lib/libc_r .c uthread_file.c uthread_fork.c uthread_gc.c ... Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:12:23 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <22907.973846342@winston.osd.bsdi.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > And just to answer the (as yet) unasked question: I allowed this in > because even though it was a large change, it was a change occurring > in an area largely off the critical path. Those people who do care > about functional threads do care rather deeply, however, so the > trade-off was deemed to have an acceptable risk/reward ratio. > > - Jordan As I see it, the patches are so well tested that even if you assume the worst possible undetected bugs in them, they're less serious than the known bugs that the patches fix. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message