yes but thete are subcommits that you could go ahead with... the td_ucred stuff could have been checked in directly into -current.
On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, John Baldwin wrote: > > On 26-Feb-02 Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, John Baldwin wrote: > >> > >> My suggestion will be to back it out. I would rather not have to make said > >> suggestion. Can you please try to fit this into the existing framework > >> rather > >> than ripping it all up? We need to finalize and test the design before we > >> hardcode too many assumptions about the implementation into the interface. > >> You > >> have pointed out some issues with the current interface which are valid and > >> I > >> would like to address those, however, there are still changes to the MI > >> implementation that need to go in once it doesn't crash right and left. If > >> you > >> wish I could commit the code and make current a living hell for everyone, > >> but > >> my ethics don't permit me to test code that I know is broken. > >> > > > > You know john, I wish you would commit more often and let it break things > > occasionally. > > It's REALLY HARD for anyone else to comment and help if you keep doing on > > P4 which is NOT the project Souce control system. > > Even with cvsup assistanace, it's just no-where near as convenient as > > having it checked in. And after you HAVE checked it in, others can help > > find and fix problems.. as it is you are "on your own". > > (This is the reason I will shortly check in the KSE diffs on a branch) > > *sigh* > > Preemptive kernels don't even make it out of single user mode for SMP machines, > ok? We aren't talking minor breakage here, we are talking _extreme_ breakage. > If people want to play with it, preempt.patch on freefall is updated via a cron > job every half hour or so. Unfortunately, however, it's in a limbo atm due to > KSE and needing to sort out how the priorities are going to work. It will > really be better to let KSE settle into the scheduler first adn then add > preemption to the scheduler itself afterwards. > > The reason I'm not pushing preemption into the tree fully (I've already > committed half of the original patch) is that there is other work (proc locking > for example) that gets us more bang for the buck. > > -- > > John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ > "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
