From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 6 23:10:08 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B88DA14; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 23:10:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from asmrookie@gmail.com) Received: from mail-lb0-f182.google.com (mail-lb0-f182.google.com [209.85.217.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 449DC8FC12; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 23:10:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lb0-f182.google.com with SMTP id b5so1076978lbd.13 for ; Tue, 06 Nov 2012 15:10:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=hGDLuGtL4B9ZY2wBDuYHykN3/DAA7cUs/j1bb0JjmUc=; b=gv0RkKEM4vQV/GjgASWjn0yNFls6A/Mu71MaMmRX7NwbQ5GZzHZtI7lA9Yd8YA6gQl M1Azd6NQHpaWedrrqpBj3hfAU22bfj4tY3t+rMFkWhcuC4vOM2b5enxpT7TAEd+ILf3o 5njctLoLeiTOfD9HYD3Ar0d4Y/jJE2EfrvUWWAEpnlTPvMGokGzFSevhOn1MGXMOeOVN Q4OA2QTNMdXiu6yt5BMEbc3DSExMipn7zPG6uLRrlR5TOhcOitKjjpdpOZ8LzyWxlJv9 N0h30PPqvk/9q+CieIKYDAUDnLFn5X9bMvxFDm5oIxt/fjfPInkPbI83xgw7zOTPCaMC GUzA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.36.200 with SMTP id s8mr1181097lbj.92.1352243405152; Tue, 06 Nov 2012 15:10:05 -0800 (PST) Sender: asmrookie@gmail.com Received: by 10.112.30.37 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 15:10:05 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <201210221750.q9MHot26061585@svn.freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 23:10:05 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: U84Q2CkAOzQNUjtvt7F3lHk1Wp4 Message-ID: Subject: Re: svn commit: r241896 - in head: . cddl/contrib/opensolaris/lib/libzpool/common/sys share/man/man9 sys/cam/ctl sys/cddl/compat/opensolaris/kern sys/cddl/compat/opensolaris/sys sys/cddl/contrib/openso... From: Attilio Rao To: Ben Kaduk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Konstantin Belousov X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: attilio@FreeBSD.org List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 23:10:08 -0000 On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Ben Kaduk wrote: > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Attilio Rao wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Ben Kaduk wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote: >> Hi Ben, >> no, ports/thirdy part should be adjusted on the -CURRENT ABI. >> Leaving MPSAFE would just leave confusion and a way to *not do* the conversion. > > Hi Attilio, > > I agree that port/thirdparty filesystems must be adjusted to the > -current ABI. If the only change is ABI, not API, though, recompiling > is sufficient; no code changes are needed. > But the present state of affairs is that correct, working (MPSAFE) > code is broken, and there was no possibility to make it correct for > the new ABI prior to the ABI change. It seems rather inconsiderate of > the users of -current (and we really want people to continue to run > -current!) to gratuitously break the API (well, KPI) as well as KBI, > when KPI change is not immediately necessary. I must tell the user to > include "#define MPSAFE (0)" as a workaround until a patch can be > committed to the port, let alone the upstream! The 10.0 release is a > bit off, yet; can we not spare a few months for lag between KBI change > and KPI change to allow third-parties who are paying attention to get > a smooth transition? "Rebuild the port" is much easier than "observe > errors, dink around for a while investigating, patch the code, and > rebuild the port." > MPSAFE deorbit is a long-term project (which I am very happy to see > happen; thank you both Attilio and Kostantin and all!), but this step > seems rushed. Why must KPI change occur in lockstep with KBI change? The point is that KPI/KBI of -CURRENT can change as long as __FreeBSD_version is bumped (and if you really want to know my opinion, I already see this as a forceful thing because it would not be necessary in my mind, but I second the will of the majority of developers). So, if the KPI/KBI changes all the thirdy part code, ports and everything else must adapt. MPSAFE flag is not any longer supported and code needs to be ported appropriately to -CURRENT interface. Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein