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?

ET has one helluva sense of humor!
He's always anal-probing right-wing schizos!

Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free address at

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to