>> 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. -K _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
