Scott Rotondo wrote:
> Tim Haley wrote:
>>
>> PROPOSED SOLUTION:
>>
>> This fast-track proposes two new command line flags each for
>> the 'zpool clear' and 'zpool import' sub-commands.
>>
>> Both sub-commands will now accept a '-F' recovery mode flag.
>> When specified, a determina
Tim Haley wrote:
> Scott Rotondo wrote:
>> Tim Haley wrote:
>>>
>>> PROPOSED SOLUTION:
>>>
>>> This fast-track proposes two new command line flags each for
>>> the 'zpool clear' and 'zpool import' sub-commands.
>>>
>>> Both sub-commands will now accept a '-F' recovery mode flag.
>>>
I am sponsoring the following fast-track for myself. This case
introduces additional zpool sub-command options to support pool
recovery. The case is requesting micro/patch binding. Timeout is
09/16/2009.
Template Version: @(#)sac_nextcase 1.68 02/23/09 SMI
This information is Copyright 2009 Sun
Tim Haley wrote:
>
> PROPOSED SOLUTION:
>
> This fast-track proposes two new command line flags each for
> the 'zpool clear' and 'zpool import' sub-commands.
>
> Both sub-commands will now accept a '-F' recovery mode flag.
> When specified, a determination is made if disc
>I suppose at one point having those headers on the system was useful for
>debugging back when people had to manually work out structures in adb.
>These days with CTF they are completely unnecessary. Whenever I easily
>I can, I remove project private (especially *driver private!*) headers
>
On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 13:41 -0700, Sharon Liu wrote:
> Seb,
>
> Yes, I approve this contract.
The contract is now valid and approved.
Thank you,
-Seb
ARC members, please review and submit comments by 09/16/2009.
sun
microsystems Systems Architecture Committee
_
Subject: RBridges: Routing Bridges
Submitted by: James Carlson
File: PSARC/2009/596/o
Sharon,
Please reply-all to this mail to indicate that you approve of this
contract (you represent both the supplier and the consumer) as required
by PSARC/2007 596 RBridges: Routing Bridges. The contract file is
attached for you to review, and also located in the case directory as
contract-01.
I'm sponsoring this case on behalf of Mahesh Siddheshwar and Chunli Zhang.
This case proposes new interfaces to support copy reduction in the I/O path
especially for file sharing services.
Minor binding is requested.
This times out on Wednesday, 16 September, 2009.
Template Version: @(#)sac_nex
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> I've not had time to go over all this yet, but do we really believe
> this kind of change is fast track appropriate? I have a feeling that
> this is a significant enough core change with implications for a
> variety of project teams, that maybe this one ought to be a fu
I've not had time to go over all this yet, but do we really believe this
kind of change is fast track appropriate? I have a feeling that this is
a significant enough core change with implications for a variety of
project teams, that maybe this one ought to be a full case. I'd be a
bit uncomf
On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 11:03 -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> > Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> >
> >> These days with CTF they are completely unnecessary.
> >>
> >
> > CTF is Consolidation Private, and only available to things built in
> > the ON consolidation, so it's n
Seb,
Yes, I approve this contract.
Thanks,
Sharon
Sebastien Roy wrote:
> Sharon,
>
> Please reply-all to this mail to indicate that you approve of this
> contract (you represent both the supplier and the consumer) as required
> by PSARC/2007 596 RBridges: Routing Bridges. The contract file is
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Darren Reed wrote:
> Reviewing the file "status.allowed" for guidance on how to update
>
Most of this is already covered in the Member Handbook on sac.sfbay, in the
section about opinion duties.
The status.allowed is a memory reference, and not intended to be t
Looks OK to me.
- Garrett
Sebastien Roy wrote:
> ARC members, please review and submit comments by 09/16/2009.
>
> sun
>microsystems Systems Architecture Committee
>
> _
>
> Subject: RBridges: Routing Brid
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> James Carlson wrote:
>> Think of it as linker mapfiles for packaging. The idea, unfortunately,
>> went nowhere. Too many people were either skeptical of the utility of
>> breaking up SUNWhea or of the value of trying to segregate private
>> interfaces better.
>>
>>
> I
SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE COUNCIL
Platform Software ARC
-
PSARC Regular Meeting time: Wednesdays 10:00-1:00pm in MPK17-3507.
09-09-2009 MEETING MINUTES
SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE COUNCIL
Layered Software ARC
-
09-08-2009 MEETING MINUTES
Send CORRECTIONS, additions, deletions to lsarc-coord at sun.com.
Minutes are archived in /
Reviewing the file "status.allowed" for guidance on how to update
the IAM file for a case, it seems to stop being useful once a case
gets to the opinion review stage. Below is a proposed patch to the
"status.allowed" file to make it more complete.
Darren
--- status.allowed ---
*** /tmp/sc
Hi all,
Please see my comments in line.
On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 18:56 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote:
> Note that I changed the IAM file for this case to "waiting need spec"
> and I increased the timeout to 09/15/2009.
>
> In what timeframe does the project team plan to provide an updated
> one-pager t
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> My brief comments:
>
> 1) We need a list API.
Agreed.
> 2) I'm of the opinion that having multiple APIs in the DDI to accomplish
> the same thing is not constructive.
It's certainly suboptimal. But where there are two or more important
and conflicting traditions, what
This case was approved at PSARC on the 2nd of September, 2009.
Darren
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>
>> These days with CTF they are completely unnecessary.
>>
>
> CTF is Consolidation Private, and only available to things built in
> the ON consolidation, so it's not a useful replacement for anything.
>
>
The drivers that are built in
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 08:53:22AM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> I'm not of the opinion that breaking up SUNWhea into smaller packages is
> useful. I *am* of the opinion that headers which are Project Private,
> or possibly Consolidation Private, should not be packaged at all. (I'd
> probabl
The timer on this case had been extended to 9/09/2009 and was approved
at PSARC today.
- John
Thank you ..
Spoorthy
John Fischer wrote:
> All,
>
> This case was approved today at LSARC during the business portion
> of the meeting.
>
> John
>
>
> Spoorthy H.S wrote:
>> Hi John,
>>
>> Here's the new ARC one pager for the package Crypt-CBC.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Spoorthy
>>
>> John Fischer wrote:
John,
Sorry I didn't realise that further discussion with Gary was off list.
I believe Gary's concerns have been addressed, His main
misunderstanding was in the term dialog. I was always referring to a
GUI dialog box and Gary appears to have thought I was taking about a CLI
dialogue betwee
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:55:57 -0700
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> James Carlson wrote:
> >
> >> Given that, I'd actually prefer to remove the queue.h interfaces, and
> >> promote list.h. list.h interfaces are safer than BSD queue.h (see above
> >> argument), and have been around and available since ~f
Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> These days with CTF they are completely unnecessary.
CTF is Consolidation Private, and only available to things built in
the ON consolidation, so it's not a useful replacement for anything.
--
-Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith at sun.com
Sun
James Carlson wrote:
>> 3) should never have been delivered in SUNWhea without a
>> supporting ARC case. (But then neither should have sys/list.h.)
>>
>
> I disagree with that assertion. The contents of SUNWhea is not itself a
> documented interface -- in other words, what determines stabi
30 matches
Mail list logo
