Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:01:19 -0700 From: Tony Arcieri <tarcieri@atmos.colostate.edu> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern sched_ule.c (fwd) Message-ID: <20041215210119.GF17276@flash.atmos.colostate.edu> In-Reply-To: <20041215152931.H60504@mail.chesapeake.net> References: <20041214222444.GA9668@flash.atmos.colostate.edu> <3308.192.168.1.9.1103065723.squirrel@192.168.1.9> <20041215001222.GB9957@flash.atmos.colostate.edu> <41BF9130.9070907@freebsd.org> <20041215152931.H60504@mail.chesapeake.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 03:32:14PM -0500, Jeff Roberson wrote: > On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Scott Long wrote: > > I'm definitely not against these fixes going into RELENG_5, but I would > > like to see some significant testing be applied to them in HEAD first, > > especially to changes that are not confined to just sched_ule.c (and > > sched_4bsd.c). > > Can I commit changes that are restricted to sched_ule.c? It certainly > can't make things any worse than they are on RELENG_5 now. We can leave > the #error in until it's really tested on head. That way only people who > remove that line of code can use it. The changes to kern_sig.c are also necessary to ensure the stability of the ULE scheduler, correct? I guess I'll just keep running with a kernel build with RELENG_5 sources and sched_ule.c, kern_switch.c, and kern_sig.c from head. And am I correct that the UMA implementation in RELENG_5 has rendered proc_fini() obsolete and thus it won't ever be called? Tony Arcieri
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041215210119.GF17276>