Bosko Milekic wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 03:09:53PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Wemm writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>My personal check list before committing it to -current is:
>>>>- an honest shot at getting the Alpha working. Shouldn't be too hard.
>>>> I'll work on this if nobody else will.
>>>>- finish the userland build stuff.
>>>>- carefully reread all of the key diffs for i386/i386/*, kern/*, vm/* etc.
>>>>- take a look at ports impact and prepare them for the landing.
>>>>
>>>If you add:
>>>
>>> - Beat the shit out of it together with other developers for a couple of
>>> weeks.
>>>
>>>Then I'm all for committing it when you have checked off those boxes.
>>>
>>I agree with this list.
>>
>
> I think that realistically speaking, after having looked over the
> diff, and after considering what was discussed here, that it would be
> a good time to introduce the KSE work done thus far some time soon,
> after said testing is done. The reason for this is that the KSE
> changes to date are, as Julian and some others mentionned,
> "infrastructural changes," and not _functional_ changes. Therefore, I
> don't expect them to create additional logic issues (e.g. "I wonder if
> it's KSE's semantics that are breaking this..." shouldn't come up with
> these changes when debugging other code).
> Thus, I agree with Peter and Julian on this issue and will be
> applying the diff to both dual CPU machines I have here and testing
> tonight. At the same time, I do hope that the actual _functional_
> changes come in a hopefully more orderly/slower manner so that it is
> in fact possible to track down logic problems w.r.t. KSE should they
> arise.
>
> On another (perhaps unrelated) note, I've noticed on the lists at
> least one or two -CURRENT users/testers insist on having KSE
> functionality but at the same time expecting to have production
> material in early 5.0 "releases." I find this to be disturbing. While
> I do agree that earlier "5.0 releases" should deffinately reach out to
> the largest userbase possible, I am concerned that some users will
> perhaps expect so much from the system that they will immediately go
> ahead and pit it against more mature SMP OSes out there and then go on
> to complain about everything under the Sun because "brand new
> functionality (X) is not what I expected." The robustness and
> performance of the work being done now will become more and more
> apparent only as things progress and it should be noted that all of
> these "nice things" resulting from all the work we're presently doing
> will not just all magically surface when 5.0-RC1 (or whatever it's
> going to be called) is "released."
As I recall, *total* "functionality" of the subsystems wasn't promised for 5.0-R, but
the infrastructure *was* promised. I expect
you are reponding to my post in the other thread...
Nobody is expecting a kick-butt implementation to just spring from the head of Zeus,
but the infrastructure should be in place so
that a kick-butt implementation can be made from it in the time that follows. With
the infrastructure in place, we can probably
expect a good implementation by 5.1-R, if it doesn't get committed at this stage,
Julian will be lucky to get it in by 6.0-R, and I
bet all the same arguments against will come up then as well.
The patches seem relatively benign, and after some basic immediate testing, they
should be committed to -current. That's all I'm
trying to say.
My response to the other gentleman were to address his comments that FreeBSD should
not even hit the goals it had set initially for
5.0. I disagree with those arguments completely. I thought that Jordan and the core
team had a good, even pessimistic estimate a
couple of years ago for the future of 5.0 and even 6.0 as I recall... IMHO, I would
tend to say that those estimates were
pessimistic even. It definitely wasn't a "everything, including the kitchen sink"
philosophy such as they had for 2.0-R [which was
also influenced by legal matters], a lot of people may still remember that release,
and the mad rush to fix the newly-introduced
problems afterwards, I'm certain that David Greenman and some others do :^)
Expecting to see the base infrastructure in place with at least some functionality of
the new infrastructure is being realistic.
Expecting a *PERFECT* implementation and *FULL* functionality of the new paradigms
isn't. I want to see a functional SMPng for
sure, but Julian is right, now is the time for the KSE infrastructure to be committed,
it's at that stage.
Just clarifying my "clarification" here.
BTW: shouldn't this be in the other thread?
jim
--
ET has one helluva sense of humor!
He's always anal-probing right-wing schizos!
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
