On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 01:59:56PM -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
> The goal of DP's is to increase exposure of the development branch in some
> key audiences, including the developer community, and community of early
> adopters. Part of the discussion that lead up to deciding to follow
> through on
David O'Brien wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 12:34:08PM -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
> > Hmm. The argument for A is, I think, is a lot stronger than for J, since
> > it comes without the performance impact, and you can actually generate
> > useful diagnostics. I would be fine with leaving A
This seems like a reasonable strategy. If we do this, we'll need to
expand the discussion of performance tuning and usability in the release
notes for the DP. We'll also need to formalize the notion of DP3: right
now we have only DP1 and DP2 formally scheduled, and DP2 is expected to
have some
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Robe
rt Watson writes:
>Something that phk and I have discussed out-of-band is the idea of keying
>phkmalloc behavior to kernel selection. I.e., exposing a policy sysctl
>from the kernel, keyed to the kernel identity/option, causing phkmalloc to
>behave different
On Sun, 24 Mar 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 12:34:08PM -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
> > Hmm. The argument for A is, I think, is a lot stronger than for J, since
> > it comes without the performance impact, and you can actually generate
> > useful diagnostics. I would be
On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 12:34:08PM -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
> Hmm. The argument for A is, I think, is a lot stronger than for J, since
> it comes without the performance impact, and you can actually generate
> useful diagnostics. I would be fine with leaving A in the developer
> snapshot.
Le
On Sun, 24 Mar 2002, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Robe
> rt Watson writes:
>
> >A few weeks ago, I would have believed you. Except that using -J was a
> >workaround recommended in a recent security advisory--prior to
> >recommending it, I ran it on a server of min
"David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Should I also mention the DP's GENERIC kernel has no INVARIANTS and no
> WITNESS? I have not gotten a response back from the RE's about that one
> yet. This is also wrong. INVARIANTS is low-impact. I can kind of
> accept WITNESS -- maybe we should
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Robe
rt Watson writes:
>A few weeks ago, I would have believed you. Except that using -J was a
>workaround recommended in a recent security advisory--prior to
>recommending it, I ran it on a server of mine for a few days. You'd be
>surprised how many random appli
On Sun, 24 Mar 2002, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Robe
> rt Watson writes:
>
> >With new userland code coming into -CURRENT at a rapid rate, it may be
> >useful in -CURRENT for developers. For DPs, probably not.
>
> I don't have to tell you what the 'D' in 'DP' m
On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 11:28:27AM -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
> Not clear from your suggestion if you mean the branch or the dp's. My
> feeling is that a useful strategy is:
>
> - -CURRENT has AJ from inception of branch until final DP before release.
> - DP's don't have AJ
The DP's should hav
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Robe
rt Watson writes:
>With new userland code coming into -CURRENT at a rapid rate, it may be
>useful in -CURRENT for developers. For DPs, probably not.
I don't have to tell you what the 'D' in 'DP' means, right ? :-)
Robert, I can only say that I disagree 100
On Sat, 23 Mar 2002, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> "David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : The RE's are wanting to ship 5.0 DP#1 w/this patch applied.
> : If having 'AJ' by default is deemed not useful (by being removed from the
> : DP), it sounds
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "David O'Brien" writes:
>The RE's are wanting to ship 5.0 DP#1 w/this patch applied.
>If having 'AJ' by default is deemed not useful (by being removed from the
>DP), it sounds like we should just turn it off.
>
>Unless there is strong objection, I plan on committing
On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 06:40:21PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> Surely, you're joking. No wonder it's a PITA
> to convince a 3rd party vendor to release a
> FreeBSD product.
Please don't misinterpret David's words. 3rd party apps are not
our *primary* concern, FreeBSD is. And note that in this
On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 06:40:21PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 04:34:57PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > As FreeBSD developers, 3rd party code cannot
> > be our primary concern.
>
> Surely, you're joking. No wonder it's a PITA
> to convince a 3rd party vendor to r
On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 04:34:57PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> As FreeBSD developers, 3rd party code cannot
> be our primary concern.
>
Surely, you're joking. No wonder it's a PITA
to convince a 3rd party vendor to release a
FreeBSD product.
--
Steve
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAI
On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 04:09:27PM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> If I remember correctly, it was the plan all along that releases would
> not have AJ turned on by default.
>
> The real question is: should the patch stay in after the release is
> rolled? Has the AJ default outliv
On 2002-03-23 17:10, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> Well, 'current' has spoken I guess! :-)
>
> :From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> :To: "M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Damn, I knew we shouldn't make current too smart.
Now we'll have to find names for 5.0-RELEASE like 'Wintermute' etc.
Giorgos Keramida
ECTED]>
:Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:Subject: Re: turning off malloc's AJ by default
:Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
:Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
:
:[ WARNING, From: let to the list to deal with ignorant MUA's ]
:
:On
At 4:34 PM -0800 3/23/02, David wrote:
>On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 05:23:35PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> >
> > I think we should keep AJ enabled until at least DP2. It has
> > found bugs in the past, and I suspect that a lot of new code
> > is going in between now and then.
>
>Robert Watson
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: [ WARNING, From: let to the list to deal with ignorant MUA's ]
Or MUA's that don't meet your expectations.
: On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 05:23:35PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > "David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[ WARNING, From: let to the list to deal with ignorant MUA's ]
On Sat, Mar 23, 2002 at 05:23:35PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> "David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : The RE's are wanting to ship 5.0 DP#1 w/this patch applied.
> : If having 'AJ' by default is deemed not usef
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: The RE's are wanting to ship 5.0 DP#1 w/this patch applied.
: If having 'AJ' by default is deemed not useful (by being removed from the
: DP), it sounds like we should just turn it off.
:
: Unless there is s
If I remember correctly, it was the plan all along that releases would
not have AJ turned on by default.
The real question is: should the patch stay in after the release is
rolled? Has the AJ default outlived its usefulness in general?
-Ma
25 matches
Mail list logo
