There's another good reason to MFC the linux patch on wednesday... that is, to do it at the same time the SMP cleanup is MFC'd, and that is because both patch sets require the linux kernel module to be recompiled and I'd rather not force people to do that twice. The SMP patchset, in fact, requires that all kernel modules be recompiled due to the locks that were removed from the spl*() macros. This is something I would contemplate doing for 4.0->4.1, but not something I would consider for 4.1 onward. Even though 4.0 is the most stable .0 release we've ever had, it's still a .0. I wonder if it makes sense to add a release id to the module header and have the module loader refuse (unless forced) to load modules that are out-of-date with the kernel? -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
- Linux emulation scripting fix to be committed to 5.x a... Matthew Dillon
- Re: Linux emulation scripting fix to be committed... Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: Linux emulation scripting fix to be commi... Matthew Dillon
- Re: Linux emulation scripting fix to be c... Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: Linux emulation scripting fix to ... Matthew Dillon
- Re: Linux emulation scripting fi... Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: Linux emulation scripting fi... David Greenman
- Re: Linux emulation scriptin... Matthew Dillon
- Re: Linux emulation scripting fix to be c... Matthew Dillon
- Re: Linux emulation scripting fix to ... Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: Linux emulation scripting fi... Matthew Dillon
- Re: Linux emulation scriptin... Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: Linux emulation scri... Matthew Dillon
- Re: Linux emulation scri... Richard Wackerbarth
- Re: Linux emulation scriptin... Rodney W. Grimes
- Re: Linux emulation scri... Matthew Dillon
- Re: Linux emulation scri... Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: Linux emulation scri... Matthew Dillon
- To MFC or not to MFC, th... Jordan K. Hubbard