Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:16:08 +0100 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> To: Oleg Bulyzhin <oleg@FreeBSD.org> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.org, re@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: backporting dummynet's q_time change ? (svn 184414) Message-ID: <20090123121608.GC46033@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> In-Reply-To: <20090123102552.GD54838@lath.rinet.ru> References: <20090123081028.GA38763@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <20090123085337.GB54838@lath.rinet.ru> <20090123092312.GC40642@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <20090123094420.GC54838@lath.rinet.ru> <20090123102114.GA42867@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <20090123102552.GD54838@lath.rinet.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 01:25:52PM +0300, Oleg Bulyzhin wrote: ... > > understand - my question is whether there is strong objection > > in applying the real fix (the one in HEAD) rather than this > > workaround. > > In my opinion the MFC is quite safe as I explained. > > > > cheers > > luigi > > I see. I have no objection but i think this is policy question so i'm not the > right person to ask. your feedback on technical issues is still important and a prerequisite for acting. The policy is there to prevent, among other things, breakage in upgrades, which in this case are not possible so the policy should not affect us. cheers luigi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090123121608.GC46033>