Ed,
Thanks for reviewing this again. I took most of your
input. For the questions you had or the things I
didn't take, I have responded below.
Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
- could you propegate back your common changes to the original file?
I don't want to complicate this project with the
Jordan,
Thanks for reviewing this again. I took most of your
input. For the things I didn't take, I have responded
below.
Jordan Vaughan wrote:
usr/src/uts/common/brand/solaris10/s10_brand.c
1260-1261,1286-1287,1313,etc.: Couldn't we make arg1 a zoneid_t, arg2 an
int, arg3 a char *, and
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 09:47:40AM -0600, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
Ed,
Thanks for reviewing this again. I took most of your
input. For the questions you had or the things I
didn't take, I have responded below.
Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
- could you propegate back your common changes to the
also, i would have though you'd commited to doing this work when you
decided to fork the sn1 brand code instead of making it common.
I was wondering about this too. Indeed, there seems be a sizeable amount
of duplicated code now. Why is this the right design?
--
meem
Ed,
Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 09:47:40AM -0600, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
Ed,
Thanks for reviewing this again. I took most of your
input. For the questions you had or the things I
didn't take, I have responded below.
Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
- could you propegate back
Peter Memishian wrote:
also, i would have though you'd commited to doing this work when you
decided to fork the sn1 brand code instead of making it common.
I was wondering about this too. Indeed, there seems be a sizeable amount
of duplicated code now. Why is this the right design?
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 12:15:23PM -0600, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
Ed,
Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 09:47:40AM -0600, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
Ed,
Thanks for reviewing this again. I took most of your
input. For the questions you had or the things I
didn't take, I have
Ed,
Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 12:15:23PM -0600, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
Ed,
Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 09:47:40AM -0600, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
Ed,
Thanks for reviewing this again. I took most of your
input. For the questions you had or the things
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 12:18:21PM -0600, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
Peter Memishian wrote:
also, i would have though you'd commited to doing this work when you
decided to fork the sn1 brand code instead of making it common.
I was wondering about this too. Indeed, there seems be a sizeable
Peter Memishian wrote:
I was wondering about this too. Indeed, there seems be a sizeable amount
of duplicated code now. Why is this the right design?
Because the sn1 brand is an internal brand for testing
and is not delivered to customers. Once the solaris10
brand is
Ed,
Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
really? i'd have to disagree. i was actually expecting that when
nevada dies we'd have to update the sn1 brand to work on opensolaris. i
always thought you forked the code because that was faster than
re-factoring it to be common.
No, that wasn't my thinking,
I don't see how that addresses the primary point, which is that Solaris
brands seem to suffer from code duplication. Are you asserting that the
amount of code duplication between the sn1 and solaris10 brands is unique
to that situation and is not something that will occur again when
On 10/ 1/09 05:40 AM, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
i'm not done yet, but i've attached what i've got so far.
Ed,
Thanks for your comments. I'll start to work through
these while we're waiting for the rest of your input and
respond if there is anything we're not going to
Jordan Vaughan wrote:
I have a few nits and questions aside from Ed's.
Jordan,
Thanks for looking this over. I'll address these once
I finish going through Ed's comments.
Thanks again,
Jerry
___
zones-discuss mailing list
Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
i'm not done yet, but i've attached what i've got so far.
Ed,
Thanks for your comments. I'll start to work through
these while we're waiting for the rest of your input and
respond if there is anything we're not going to address.
Thank again,
Jerry
i've finished looking through the rest of the files and my comments are
attached.
ed
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 05:09:26PM -0600, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
- also, since the s10 brand is derived from the sn1 brand, could you
please ensure that all the new s10 brand that are
i'm not done yet, but i've attached what i've got so far.
ed
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 05:09:26PM -0600, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
- also, since the s10 brand is derived from the sn1 brand, could you
please ensure that all the new s10 brand that are being created are
derived
Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
- also, since the s10 brand is derived from the sn1 brand, could you
please ensure that all the new s10 brand that are being created are
derived from the corresponding sn1 brand files? ie, the s10 brand files
which are derived from sn1 brand files should be created via
Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
hey jerry,
do you have an updated ws+webrev where the s10 files were created using
hg cp? (i'm waiting for that before doing a review.)
also, when were you planning to integrate? (so i can avoid a last
minute rush.)
Ed,
I wasn't aware that this was holding you up.
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 03:06:00PM -0600, Jerry Jelinek wrote:
Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
hey jerry,
do you have an updated ws+webrev where the s10 files were created using
hg cp? (i'm waiting for that before doing a review.)
also, when were you planning to integrate? (so i can avoid a last
two high level comments to start with.
- since the s10 brand is derived from the sn1 brand, are there any
framework changes which were made to the s10 brand that should be
backported to the sn1 brand?
- also, since the s10 brand is derived from the sn1 brand, could you
please ensure that all the
We've completed the development for the Phase I
work on the solaris10 brand. I've posted a
full webrev at:
http://cr.opensolaris.org/~gjelinek/webrev.646/
Let me know if there are any comments.
I see that ip-type=exclusive is regarded as experimental in
s10_support.c; is
Peter Memishian wrote:
We've completed the development for the Phase I
work on the solaris10 brand. I've posted a
full webrev at:
http://cr.opensolaris.org/~gjelinek/webrev.646/
Let me know if there are any comments.
I see that ip-type=exclusive is regarded as experimental
23 matches
Mail list logo
