LOCK_PROFILING in -stable
Skip Ford
skip at menantico.com
Wed Oct 24 10:47:10 PDT 2007
Robert Watson wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
> >>This is my feeling also -- I would consider ABI breakage a show stopper
> >>for 6.x, but feel otherwise that the new code is much more mature and
> >>capable and would be quite beneficial to people building appliances and
> >>related products on 6.x. You might check with Attilio about whether there
> >>are any remaining outstanding issues that need to be resolved first, and
> >>make sure to send a heads up out on stable@ and put a note in UPDATING
> >>that the option and details have changed.
> >
> >I still get confused as to the meaning of this...
> >
> >It only breaks ABI when it's enabled.
> >
> >I think that is OK, right?
>
> As we're eliminating MUTEX_PROFILING and replacing it with LOCK_PROFILING,
> I think it is OK that the ABI for one differs from the other as long as the
> base kernel ABI remains static. I.e., this seems OK to me also.
If -stable will have LOCK_PROFILING, it'd be really nice to have
it compatible with a standard world in some way, even if just with
a makefile hack that builds netstat_lp(1) in addition to
netstat(1) (and other utilities.)
One can easily boot a diskless email, web, or name server into
kernels with other debug-type options without maintaining
multiple worlds. One might want to run a LOCK_PROFILING stable
kernel on a diskless email server for a period of time, but
that will require either a matching world, or putting up with
breakage for that period of time, neither of which is a fair
expectation in a stable environment, IMO.
I can maintain local makefile hacks for production if somebody
with some makefile foo gets me started.
--
Skip
More information about the freebsd-stable
mailing list