Let me re-send my email.. my silly mac sent my first try from the wrong address.. sigh (sorry moderator where ever you are ;-o)
All: I have finally pulled my head out of the sands of TLS and had some time to look at this interesting long thread. I agree with Warner and Adrian on this.. Lets back it out and then in a branch chew this over piece by piece.. R As an addition I have decided to get my head back into this, I was one of the ones on Hann’s original email and I had asked him to wait until *after* the Holiday’s to do anything (thinking on continuing the discussion) I did *not* realize he planned on roto-tilling the callout system.. sigh > On Jan 21, 2015, at 7:10 PM, Adrian Chadd <adr...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On 21 January 2015 at 16:07, K. Macy <km...@freebsd.org> wrote: >>>> HPS: Your change failed to meet these guidelines. Some of us are upset >>>> because these guidelines are fairly fundamental for the on-going >>>> viability of FreeBSD. Due to linguistic / time zone / cultural >>>> differences these expectations have not been adequately communicated >>>> to you. You are not in the USB sandbox where others need for your >>>> support outweighs the inconvenience of random breakage. >>>> >>>> It sounds like you are making progress towards updating the concerns >>>> that have been voiced. If kib's observations are in fact comprehensive >>>> then adding a callout_init_cpu function and updating all clients so >>>> that their callouts continue to be scheduled on a CPU other than the >>>> BSP will suffice and we can all move on. >>> >>> Is there some reason that we can’t back things out, break things down into >>> smaller pieces and have everything pass through phabric with a wide >>> ranging review? Given the fundamental nature of these changes, they >>> really need better review and doing it after the fact seems to be to be >>> too risky. I’m not debating that this “fixes” some issues, but given the >>> performance regression, it sure seems like we may need a different >>> solution to be implemented and hashing that out in a branch might be >>> the best approach. >> >> Thank you. A more incremental approach would be appreciated by many of >> us. To avoid the bystander effect we can permit explicit timeouts for >> review-to-commit (72 hours?) so that we don't collectively end up >> sandbagging him. > > I'm +1 for this. > > > > -a ------------------------------ Randall Stewart 803-317-4952 (cell) _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
