Author: obrien
Date: Fri Aug 9 16:43:50 2013
New Revision: 254150
URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/254150
Log:
Add missing 'VPO_BUSY' from r254141 to fix kernel build break.
Modified:
head/sys/vm/vm_page.h
Modified: head/sys/vm/vm_page.h
On Friday, August 09, 2013 12:43:50 pm David E. O'Brien wrote:
Author: obrien
Date: Fri Aug 9 16:43:50 2013
New Revision: 254150
URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/254150
Log:
Add missing 'VPO_BUSY' from r254141 to fix kernel build break.
Modified:
head/sys/vm/vm_page.h
On Friday, August 09, 2013 4:34:36 pm Alan Cox wrote:
On Aug 9, 2013, at 12:56 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
On Friday, August 09, 2013 12:43:50 pm David E. O'Brien wrote:
Author: obrien
Date: Fri Aug 9 16:43:50 2013
New Revision: 254150
URL:
On Aug 9, 2013, at 1:34 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
On Aug 9, 2013, at 12:56 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
On Friday, August 09, 2013 12:43:50 pm David E. O'Brien wrote:
Author: obrien
Date: Fri Aug 9 16:43:50 2013
New Revision: 254150
URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/254150
Log:
On Aug 9, 2013, at 1:39 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
On Friday, August 09, 2013 4:34:36 pm Alan Cox wrote:
On Aug 9, 2013, at 12:56 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
On Friday, August 09, 2013 12:43:50 pm David E. O'Brien wrote:
Author: obrien
Date: Fri Aug 9 16:43:50 2013
New Revision: 254150
URL:
On Aug 9, 2013, at 1:45 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
On Friday, August 09, 2013 4:40:10 pm Alan Cox wrote:
On Aug 9, 2013, at 1:34 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
On Aug 9, 2013, at 12:56 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
On Friday, August 09, 2013 12:43:50 pm David E. O'Brien wrote:
Author: obrien
Date: Fri
... ?
Can we please back it all out and then re-test attilio's patch with
alan's fix, before committing it all again?
I kinda have a vested interest at ${WORK} to be able to test -10 HEAD
right now for all these performance investigations and fixes that need
to happen for us; having the VM
Quoting Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org:
... ?
Can we please back it all out and then re-test attilio's patch with
alan's fix, before committing it all again?
John is doing a sanity check on my patch. He'll commit it shortly.
So, I don't think that we need to go as far as backing
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
... ?
Can we please back it all out and then re-test attilio's patch with
alan's fix, before committing it all again?
I kinda have a vested interest at ${WORK} to be able to test -10 HEAD
right now for all these
No, we should upgrade the cluster, watch it fail, and then let people
experience their own handiwork.
Sheesh. :(
-adrian
On 9 August 2013 14:19, Peter Wemm pe...@wemm.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
... ?
Can we please back it all out and
Yes, at least some of this stuff is coming to light because we're aggressively
tracking top-of-tree in both 9 and 10. Which is good. But highly annoying at
times. But good in the long run. It means that 9.2 won't suck, and 10.0 won't
suck. =-)
Scott
On Aug 9, 2013, at 3:22 PM, Adrian Chadd
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org wrote:
No, we should upgrade the cluster, watch it fail, and then let people
experience their own handiwork.
It could turn out a bit like this:
12 matches
Mail list logo