Robert Watson wrote: > On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > >>This is my feeling also -- I would consider ABI breakage a show stopper > >>for 6.x, but feel otherwise that the new code is much more mature and > >>capable and would be quite beneficial to people building appliances and > >>related products on 6.x. You might check with Attilio about whether there > >>are any remaining outstanding issues that need to be resolved first, and > >>make sure to send a heads up out on stable@ and put a note in UPDATING > >>that the option and details have changed. > > > >I still get confused as to the meaning of this... > > > >It only breaks ABI when it's enabled. > > > >I think that is OK, right? > > As we're eliminating MUTEX_PROFILING and replacing it with LOCK_PROFILING, > I think it is OK that the ABI for one differs from the other as long as the > base kernel ABI remains static. I.e., this seems OK to me also.
If -stable will have LOCK_PROFILING, it'd be really nice to have it compatible with a standard world in some way, even if just with a makefile hack that builds netstat_lp(1) in addition to netstat(1) (and other utilities.) One can easily boot a diskless email, web, or name server into kernels with other debug-type options without maintaining multiple worlds. One might want to run a LOCK_PROFILING stable kernel on a diskless email server for a period of time, but that will require either a matching world, or putting up with breakage for that period of time, neither of which is a fair expectation in a stable environment, IMO. I can maintain local makefile hacks for production if somebody with some makefile foo gets me started. -- Skip _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
