kqueue is safe to use?
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
green at FreeBSD.org
Wed Aug 18 07:11:45 PDT 2004
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 09:27:09AM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 09:52:06PM -0700, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> > Mark Johnston wrote this message on Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 20:29 -0500:
> > > Here's this week's giant summary. As you probably know, a code freeze went
> > > into effect first thing on the 17th, which is the main reason for the length
> > > of this summary.
> >
> > Another change you forgot is that I commit patches to make kqueue safe
> > to use on -current. This has been a long outstanding problem with
> > -current.
> >
> Would the following be safe to commit now?
>
> %%%
> Index: Makefile
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/usr.bin/make/Makefile,v
> retrieving revision 1.33
> diff -u -r1.33 Makefile
> --- Makefile 12 Aug 2004 11:49:55 -0000 1.33
> +++ Makefile 18 Aug 2004 06:23:06 -0000
> @@ -18,11 +18,10 @@
> CFLAGS+=-DMAKE_VERSION=\"5200408120\"
> .if defined(_UPGRADING)
> CFLAGS+=-D__FBSDID=__RCSID
> +.else
> +CFLAGS+=-DUSE_KQUEUE
> .endif
>
> -# XXX: kernel currently broken
> -# CFLAGS+=-DUSE_KQUEUE
> -
> main.o: ${MAKEFILE}
>
> # Set the shell which make(1) uses. Bourne is the default, but a decent
> %%%
>
>
I've been using it for a long time; still works just as safely with
regular -CURRENT now as it did with my previous kqueue reimplementation.
--
Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\
<> green at FreeBSD.org \ The Power to Serve! \
Opinions expressed are my own. \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\
More information about the freebsd-current
mailing list