On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 11:31:05AM +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> I wonder how many 3rd-party kernel modules do we have in ports.
http://www.freebsd.org/ports/kld.html
mcl
___
svn-src-stable-9@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailm
On Dec 30, 2012, at 2:31 AM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 08:43:56PM -0800, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>>> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:44 AM, Robert N. M. Watson
>>> wrote:
When we talked to various VFS main
On 29 Dec 2012, at 14:50, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> The standing consensus is that we try not to break certain classes of device
>> drivers, not that we don't ever change any kernel interfaces. The reason is
>> that we don't have a formal definition of "public" and do not wish to use
>> the defin
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 08:43:56PM -0800, m...@freebsd.org wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:44 AM, Robert N. M. Watson
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> When we talked to various VFS maintainers, looked at the past change
> >> history there, and loo
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:44 AM, Robert N. M. Watson
> wrote:
>>
>> When we talked to various VFS maintainers, looked at the past change
>> history there, and looked at the set of third-party file systems
>> (especially, those we could see
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:44 AM, Robert N. M. Watson wrote:
> When we talked to various VFS maintainers, looked at the past change
> history there, and looked at the set of third-party file systems
> (especially, those we could see in ports), the consensus there was that it
> was too difficult to
On 29 December 2012 02:44, Robert N. M. Watson wrote:
[snip]
>> [adrian chadd]
>> So, regardless of whether we should or shouldn't break things, a more
>> thorough discussion would've been nice.
>
> Adrian:
>
> The standing consensus is that we try not to break certain classes of device
> drive
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 10:49:59AM +, Robert N. M. Watson wrote:
>
> On 29 Dec 2012, at 04:43, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
> > Yes. Kib and I chatted offline, it seems that the SOP is really "there is
> > no guarantee about KPI when talking about VFS" so the headache that it
> > would be to
On 29 Dec 2012, at 04:43, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> Yes. Kib and I chatted offline, it seems that the SOP is really "there is no
> guarantee about KPI when talking about VFS" so the headache that it would be
> to write the shim layer and maintain it (particularly considering the 9.x
> release
On 29 Dec 2012, at 06:40, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> There's likely a bunch of companies/users that would love things to
> not change during a stable branch and there's likely a bunch of
> companies/users that would hate things being immutable during a stable
> branch.
>
> There's never been a formal
On 25 December 2012 11:17, Robert Watson wrote:
> While I would love to have a stable KBI, or even KPI, for VFS, past
> experience suggests that we are not prepared to document one, let alone
> enforce it, and that we frequently experience changes that disrupt both the
> binary and programming in
On 12/28/12 8:16 PM, Peter Wemm wrote:
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Robert Watson wrote:
On Tue, 25 Dec 2012, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 12:04:03PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 12/24/12 11:24 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
... why'd we break the KBI in a stable br
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Robert Watson wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Dec 2012, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 12:04:03PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/24/12 11:24 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
... why'd we break the KBI in a stable branch?
>>> I am n
It's an interesting discussion to have (after the new year, of course.)
I understand that we sometimes have to change ABIs because we can't
fix problems otherwise. However, I don't recall seeing much/any
discussion about this. If it appeared on a list that I didn't spot
then cool. But any kind of
On Tue, 25 Dec 2012, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 12:04:03PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
On 12/24/12 11:24 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
... why'd we break the KBI in a stable branch?
I am not sure either.
I think a single VOP for nullfs (while ugly) would have sufficed.
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 12:44:22PM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 12:04:03PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > On 12/24/12 11:24 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > > ... why'd we break the KBI in a stable branch?
> > >
> > I am not sure either.
> >
> > I think a single VOP f
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 12:04:03PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> On 12/24/12 11:24 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > ... why'd we break the KBI in a stable branch?
> >
> I am not sure either.
>
> I think a single VOP for nullfs (while ugly) would have sufficed.
No, it doesn't.
Even if it would be su
On 12/24/12 11:24 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
... why'd we break the KBI in a stable branch?
I am not sure either.
I think a single VOP for nullfs (while ugly) would have sufficed.
I have a partial patch here that shows the direction I was going.
What's left is to:
shim #defines for -stable to
... why'd we break the KBI in a stable branch?
Adrian
On 24 December 2012 06:22, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> Author: kib
> Date: Mon Dec 24 14:22:52 2012
> New Revision: 244663
> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/244663
>
> Log:
> Note that filesystem modules must be recompiled
Author: kib
Date: Mon Dec 24 14:22:52 2012
New Revision: 244663
URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/244663
Log:
Note that filesystem modules must be recompiled.
Modified:
stable/9/UPDATING
Modified: stable/9/UPDATING
=
20 matches
Mail list logo
