On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Mark Kettenis <mark.kette...@xs4all.nl> wrote: >> The small bits of code hiding behind rthreads_enabled aren't really >> experimental anymore. At this point, it's just one more knob you can >> twist to break your system. > > I'm not sure about the sysctl change. Are we sure there isn't any > code out there that uses it? In that case we should hardcode it to 1.
As a practical matter, it's been 1 for the last two releases. Do we need to say "no really, we mean it" for another two before deleting it? Seems pointless to me: such code will be left unchanged until it's actually deleted. I agree with matthew about the comment and "gap" name; with that ok guenther@
