On 26-Feb-02 Peter Wemm wrote:
> Matthew Dillon wrote:
>> :
>> :On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>> :
>> :>     Unless an unforseen problem arises, I am going to commit this
>> :>     tomorrow
>> :>     and then start working on a cleanup patch.   I have decided to
>> :
>> :Please wait for jhb's opinion on it.  He seems to be offline again.
>> :I think he has plans and maybe even code for more code in critical_enter().
>> :I think we don't agree with these plans, but they are just as valid
>> :as ours, and our versions undo many of his old changes.
>>     I am not going to predicate my every move on permission from JHB nor 
>>     do I intend to repeat the last debacle which held-up (and is still
>>     holdin
>     g
>>     up) potential commits for a week and a half now.  JHB hasn't even 
>>     committed *HIS* patches and I am beginning to wonder what the point is
>>     when *NOTHING* goes in.  If he had code he damn well should have said
>>     something on the lists two days ago.  As it is, I have invested a great
>>     deal of time and effort on this patch and it is damn well going to go
>>     in so I can move on.
> So, your great deal of time and effort over the last week is more important
> than our time and effort over the last few months?

Kernel preemption was first written at Usenix last June.  It's been stable on
UP x86 for months but we still have preemption bugs on other systems that
prevent it from going in at the time being.

Having a fully preemptive kernel simplifies many things and is the same design
path used by other major multithreaded Unix-like kernels.


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

Reply via email to