on 09/02/2013 01:51 Eitan Adler said the following: > On 8 February 2013 16:31, Ian Lepore <i...@freebsd.org> wrote: >> On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 19:32 -0500, Eitan Adler wrote: >>> Does someone here mind reviewing >>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=174226 for correctness. >>> >>> Please feel free to post alternate diffs as a reply as well. >>> >> >> Does it make sense to reference a web page on LOR status that hasn't >> been updated in four years? > > I was unaware of this, which is the reason I asked for review. ;) > > Is there an updated page or is there no such service anymore?
I suspect that the list of LORs doesn't get updated because we don't get many new LORs that here are to stay. Those old LORs are well known, harmless and hard to fix. We try to not introduce any new LORs of that kind. So the new LORs are either not introduced or getting fixed. Hence no strong need for an up-to-date list. It also seems that the interest in LORs diminished over the years as FreeBSD SMP / locking stabilized to the point of being taken for granted (as opposed to the early SMP days). So nobody (except developers adding new locks) really looks at LORs until a deadlock/livelock is really hit. On the other hand, the referenced page looks like new reports are welcome and get actually processes, which is not true. Also, the list of fixed/patched LORs has no practical use. Additionally, many LORs there are duplicates (e.g. a LOR between devfs and any <other fs> during unmount is replicated for many values of <other fs>). There also seem to be some fixed LORs, etc. It probably would make sense to reference some static page with a list of some well known LORs. But that page doesn't seem to be very useful. -- Andriy Gapon _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
