cvs commit: src/sys/amd64/amd64 pmap.c src/sys/i386/i386 pmap.c

[Yar Tikhiy]

On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 02:41:00PM -0400, Stephan Uphoff wrote:
> Yar Tikhiy wrote:
> >On Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 09:54:12AM -0600, Coleman Kane wrote:
> >  
> >>On Sat, 2007-04-21 at 17:03 +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> >>    
> >>>Stephan Uphoff wrote:
> >>>      
> >>>>ups         2007-04-21 14:17:30 UTC
> >>>>
> >>>>  FreeBSD src repository
> >>>>
> >>>>  Modified files:
> >>>>    sys/amd64/amd64      pmap.c 
> >>>>    sys/i386/i386        pmap.c 
> >>>>  Log:
> >>>>  Modify TLB invalidation handling.
> >>>>  
> >>>>  Reviewed by:    alc@, peter@
> >>>>  MFC after:      1 week
> >>>>        
> >>>Could you be a bit more verbose what changed here and why it
> >>>was done?
> >>>
> >>>      
> >>I agree. I would really like to know what the modification accomplishes.
> >>    
> >
> >Alas, we don't live in an ideal world.  If we did, our commit
> >messages would always follow the well-known guideline:
> >
> >0. Tell the essence of the change.
> >1. Give the reason for the change.
> >2. Explain the change unless it's trivial.
> >
> >  
> In the ideal world there are no NDAs :-)

Was the change based on a document under NDA?  Then this case raises
an interesting question: to what extent an open source developer
is allowed to explain his code that was based on a document under
NDA?  Of course, it should depend on the NDA, but I suspect that a
typical NDA requires a lawyer to interpret it unambiguously (I've
never signed one by myself), and an overcautious lawyer would say
that the open source code itself violates the NDA because anybody
can RTFS. :-)

> As planned I forced a commit with a better comment once I was able to.

Thank you, the new comment is excellent!  I hope Intel won't sue you
for it. :-)

> Thanks for your patients,
> 
> Stephan

-- 
Yar