On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:12:49AM +0900, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 01:08:18PM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote: > > In article <20130322030831.ga10...@britannica.bec.de>, > > Joerg Sonnenberger <jo...@britannica.bec.de> wrote: > > > > > >This is wrong and unnecessary as pointed out on the mailing lists. Why > > >are technical objections silently ignored now? Especially if they add > > >overhead without any gain and make the error case more mysterious. > > > > Technical discussions are not being ignored. This is considered > > the best compromise at this time to fix the regression for NetBSD-6. > > We cannot wait forever to fix problems. You are welcome to do > > better. No-one is right all the time. As mentioned in the commit > > message, this is not the final solution. > > I did already post a patch that fixes the problem for devel/glib. > So yes, I provided a better fix and it was ignored.
And furthermore, there was no regression. One example was provided of an application (actually a PAM module) that now threw an error rather than happening to get lucky and silently working rather than failing. Joerg found the root cause of this problem -- a bug in glib -- and fixed it. Rather than checking in his fix to the buggy application, this ill-considered change was made to libc and libpthread. Not good. It shouldn't be possible to shout down correct technical objections by making a thread last forever so core won't have time to read and think about it in its entirety. I think that is what happened here. Thor
