Re: svn commit: r287780 - in head: share/man/man9 sys/kern sys/sys

Hi guys, On 19/09/15 10:55, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > On 09/18/15 22:33, Davide Italiano wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Hans Petter Selasky >> wrote: >>> On 09/17/15 00:05, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: >> [...] 2) Your commit message didn't explain what (if any) is

Re: svn commit: r287780 - in head: share/man/man9 sys/kern sys/sys

On 09/20/15 at 10:49P, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > hiren: jch@, wrote in a comment in Phabricator he wanted to approve the > change, so it is not fully true that no other kernel developers approved > the change, for that matter. Yes, I know. And I think that's what I said in my previous email.

Re: svn commit: r287780 - in head: share/man/man9 sys/kern sys/sys

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 06:38:46PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote: > [...] > Hans - personally, I think you should've emailed out a review request > on freebsd-arch@ and put out a request for testers and give a firm date > that you'll commit it. That makes it all very explicit. I agree with general

Re: svn commit: r287780 - in head: share/man/man9 sys/kern sys/sys

Couldn't have said this any better. On 09/19/15 at 06:38P, Adrian Chadd wrote: > What isn't necessarily public knowledge is the sheer volume of emails > that went out a few months ago whilst chasing down callout and tcp > bugs. There were (and maybe still are) very subtle bugs in the callout >

Re: svn commit: r287780 - in head: share/man/man9 sys/kern sys/sys

On 09/20/15 06:26, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 06:38:46PM -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote: [...] Hans - personally, I think you should've emailed out a review request on freebsd-arch@ and put out a request for testers and give a firm date that you'll commit it. That makes it all

Re: svn commit: r287780 - in head: share/man/man9 sys/kern sys/sys

On 19 September 2015 at 10:56, Bruce Simpson wrote: > Ian, > > To paraphrase what I said privately to the various dramatis personae in > January: > > Changes like this need to be reviewed before they go in. As timing is > central to the entire OS, change review has to be

Re: svn commit: r287780 - in head: share/man/man9 sys/kern sys/sys

On 09/17/15 11:07, David Chisnall wrote: I would expect*anyone* making a change like this to have both the design and code reviewed for sanity checking. Please add an entry to MAINTAINERS for those parts of the kernel which require this strict reviews. --HPS

Re: svn commit: r287780 - in head: share/man/man9 sys/kern sys/sys

On 09/18/15 22:33, Davide Italiano wrote: On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: On 09/17/15 00:05, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: Weren't you explicitly asked not to touch this system without a proper review and discussion? Adding a new function is not

Re: svn commit: r287780 - in head: share/man/man9 sys/kern sys/sys

On 09/19/15 10:55, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: It currently has one critical client, and that is destruction of TCP connections. In general I see the added function extremely useful when creating protocols which use callouts, which destruct their "PCBs" from interrupt context, that you don't

Re: svn commit: r287780 - in head: share/man/man9 sys/kern sys/sys

On Sat, 2015-09-19 at 12:37 -0400, George Neville-Neil wrote: > > On 19 Sep 2015, at 4:58, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > > > On 09/17/15 11:07, David Chisnall wrote: > >> I would expect*anyone* making a change like this to have both the > >> design and code reviewed for sanity checking. > > > >

Re: svn commit: r287780 - in head: share/man/man9 sys/kern sys/sys

Ian, To paraphrase what I said privately to the various dramatis personae in January: Changes like this need to be reviewed before they go in. As timing is central to the entire OS, change review has to be meticulous, on par with the virtual memory management. We have a VM tsar; we do not

Re: svn commit: r287780 - in head: share/man/man9 sys/kern sys/sys

On 19 Sep 2015, at 4:58, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: On 09/17/15 11:07, David Chisnall wrote: I would expect*anyone* making a change like this to have both the design and code reviewed for sanity checking. Please add an entry to MAINTAINERS for those parts of the kernel which require this

Re: svn commit: r287780 - in head: share/man/man9 sys/kern sys/sys

Hans, on behalf of core, I ask you to revert this change due to lack of review and due to previous issues in this area. On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:52:27AM +, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: H> Author: hselasky H> Date: Mon Sep 14 10:52:26 2015 H> New Revision: 287780 H> URL:

Re: svn commit: r287780 - in head: share/man/man9 sys/kern sys/sys

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 12:20 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > On 09/17/15 00:05, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: >> >> Weren't you explicitly asked not to touch this system without a proper >> review and discussion? > > > Adding a new function is not touching code. > > --HPS > I tried to

Re: svn commit: r287780 - in head: share/man/man9 sys/kern sys/sys

On 09/17/15 00:05, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: Weren't you explicitly asked not to touch this system without a proper review and discussion? Adding a new function is not touching code. --HPS ___ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list

Re: svn commit: r287780 - in head: share/man/man9 sys/kern sys/sys

On 09/16/15 22:54, Randall Stewart wrote: Hans: By outside prompting, I have finally had a chance to look at this: What it appears you do here is: a) stop the callout, not paying attention to if it stopped or not. b) Then get the callout systems lock and check if your callout is up and

Re: svn commit: r287780 - in head: share/man/man9 sys/kern sys/sys

On 17 Sep 2015, at 08:20, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > > On 09/17/15 00:05, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: >> Weren't you explicitly asked not to touch this system without a proper >> review and discussion? > > Adding a new function is not touching code. Adding a new interface to an

Re: svn commit: r287780 - in head: share/man/man9 sys/kern sys/sys

On 09/17/15 11:07, David Chisnall wrote: On 17 Sep 2015, at 08:20, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: On 09/17/15 00:05, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: Weren't you explicitly asked not to touch this system without a proper review and discussion? Adding a new function is not touching code.

Re: svn commit: r287780 - in head: share/man/man9 sys/kern sys/sys

Hi Hans, Given how contentious this has been in the past, perhaps it would be better to goad people like rrs@ into giving you a positive, explicit OK rather than relying on a timeout that may not indicate that your change is good, just that your reviewers are busy. Warner On Thu, Sep 17, 2015

Re: svn commit: r287780 - in head: share/man/man9 sys/kern sys/sys

Hans, On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 10:52:27AM +, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: H> Author: hselasky H> Date: Mon Sep 14 10:52:26 2015 H> New Revision: 287780 H> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/287780 H> H> Log: H> Implement callout_drain_async(), inspired by the projects/hps_head

Re: svn commit: r287780 - in head: share/man/man9 sys/kern sys/sys

Hans: By outside prompting, I have finally had a chance to look at this: What it appears you do here is: a) stop the callout, not paying attention to if it stopped or not. b) Then get the callout systems lock and check if your callout is up and running, storing that in your retval. Where

svn commit: r287780 - in head: share/man/man9 sys/kern sys/sys

Author: hselasky Date: Mon Sep 14 10:52:26 2015 New Revision: 287780 URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/287780 Log: Implement callout_drain_async(), inspired by the projects/hps_head branch. This function is used to drain a callout via a callback instead of blocking the