Yar Tikhiy wrote:
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 02:41:00PM -0400, Stephan Uphoff wrote:
Yar Tikhiy wrote:
On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 09:54:12AM -0600, Coleman Kane wrote:
On Sat, 2007-04-21 at 17:03 +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
Stephan Uphoff wrote:
ups 2007-04-21 14:17:30 UTC
FreeBSD src repository
Modified files:
sys/amd64/amd64 pmap.c
sys/i386/i386 pmap.c
Log:
Modify TLB invalidation handling.
Reviewed by: alc@, peter@
MFC after: 1 week
Could you be a bit more verbose what changed here and why it
was done?
I agree. I would really like to know what the modification accomplishes.
Alas, we don't live in an ideal world. If we did, our commit
messages would always follow the well-known guideline:
0. Tell the essence of the change.
1. Give the reason for the change.
2. Explain the change unless it's trivial.
In the ideal world there are no NDAs :-)
Was the change based on a document under NDA? Then this case raises
an interesting question: to what extent an open source developer
is allowed to explain his code that was based on a document under
NDA? Of course, it should depend on the NDA, but I suspect that a
typical NDA requires a lawyer to interpret it unambiguously (I've
never signed one by myself), and an overcautious lawyer would say
that the open source code itself violates the NDA because anybody
can RTFS. :-)
Wow, that was painful to read. NDAs that specifically allow source
code licensing and distribution are quite common. They even get written
and reviewed by lawyers! =-)
Scott
_______________________________________________
cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
