Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 07:58:23 +0800 From: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org> To: Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: MFC req for 5.x/5.3 Message-ID: <4182D91F.6020603@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20041029202458.GE9533@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU> References: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0410281908000.5783-100000@sea.ntplx.net> <41817EE4.9080302@elischer.org> <20041029010822.GA12081@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU> <20041029040931.GA920@frontfree.net> <4182A431.2050001@elischer.org> <20041029202458.GE9533@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ken Smith wrote: >Yup. That's why I thought we would need to be a little bit careful >with this, it's a bit more complicated than it first seems. There >is a chance for example that a piece that's not being MFC-ed added >an extra #include and if the new code that's being MFC-ed relies on >that it can be a bit tough to catch with the first attempt. My >asking for caution on this wasn't a reflection on Julian, I'd ask >anyone to be this careful about this particular MFC because it doesn't >look like it's a straight "MFC everything". And doing an "MFC everything" >for a library like this is risky at the RC2 stage, it's possible pieces >of what gets swept in could have an impact (possibly negative) on the >packages that use it. It would be a bit of a gamble. > >Thanks for your work on this guys. Greatly appreciated. > > > Because the library in RELENG_5 can not pass my stress test: http://people.freebsd.org/~davidxu/thread_stress/joinstress.c I think it is a real world test case for web server like program, without this patches, I don't think libpthread can be used under heavily loaded environment. David Xu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4182D91F.6020603>