Ok, are all the panics fixed now?
maxim at macomnet.ru
Wed Aug 27 13:31:53 PDT 2003
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, 12:56-0700, Colin Percival wrote:
> At 23:42 27/08/2003 +0400, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
> >On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, 13:34-0500, Mike Silbersack wrote:
> > > So, I think we'll just include a warning with 4.9:
> > >
> > > WARNING!
> > >
> > > Do not attempt to stress a FreeBSD 4.9 machine if you:
> >or "Upgrade your FreeBSD to RedHat".
> s/RedHat/FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE/
No way: SA 03:08 - 03:11, http://www.freebsd.org/security/#adv
> >It's simple: we need to backout all these untested MFCs.
> Or fix the bugs. I don't know anything about the code in question, but
> now that people are getting repeatable panics, I assume that tracking down
> the bugs will be rather easier.
> There was a time when STABLE absolutely needed to be stable, but I'm not
> sure that's necessarily the case any more; now that we have all the
> release/security branches, I think it's safe to say that most systems which
> need absolute stability aren't going to be running STABLE.
We do have -CURRENT already.
Look, believe you or not but there are people including me who trying
to run -STABLE in a production environment. No sense in tracking
RELENG_4_8 because it has some serious bugs, kern/53717 and kern/50803
f.e. No sense in 4.9-REL in such bad quality too.
Maxim Konovalov, maxim at macomnet.ru, maxim at FreeBSD.org
More information about the freebsd-stable