On 05/19/17 17:34, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 17 May 2017 at 23:37, Warner Losh wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:53 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 06:04:09PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D10778
Except there are plans to use it elsewhere. Many
On 17 May 2017 at 23:37, Warner Losh wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:53 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 06:04:09PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>>> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D10778
>>>
>>
>> Except there are plans to use it elsewhere. Many areas may be improved using
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:53 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 06:04:09PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D10778
>>
>
> Except there are plans to use it elsewhere. Many areas may be improved using
> it.
>
> Having it as a module would mean some dev
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 06:04:09PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D10778
>
Except there are plans to use it elsewhere. Many areas may be improved using it.
Having it as a module would mean some devs might refrain from using it because
there is no waranty for it to be th
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D10778
-a
On 17 May 2017 at 17:46, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> hi,
>
> this is a quick change that makes concurrency_kit a module. Right now
> the only thing using it is linuxkpi so it's all dead code on
> non-linuxkpi platforms.
>
>
>
> -adrian
__
hi,
this is a quick change that makes concurrency_kit a module. Right now
the only thing using it is linuxkpi so it's all dead code on
non-linuxkpi platforms.
-adrian
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listi
