FW: Call for comments: CoxR, a CVS/mail-lists/BTS

[Kris Kennaway]

On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 02:47:42PM -0800, ALeine wrote:
> rwatson at freebsd.org wrote: 
> 
> > I appreciate that not everyone is a fan of mutex synchronization,
> > but "mutex hell" is a bit of an odd description: most bugs I see
> > getting reported (and fixed) aren't even locking-related.  They're
> > generally a property of lack of testing exposure for more obscure
> > features or edge cases that are hard to test for without a wide
> > testing base, such as edge-case hardware, bugs associated with
> > longer run times, or a recently introduced feature, etc.
> 
> Well, mutex hell is more of a humorous description, but unfortunately
> it is not too far from what is becoming a reality. I believe that
> the path the FreeBSD Project has taken with the 5.x branch (not only
> in regard to mutex locking but in general) has made things far too
> complex in ways that make even seasoned hardcore developers such as
> yourself unwilling to touch certain subsystems because only one or
> two people really understand that system well enough to introduce
> only a few (instead of a few dozen) critical bugs when changing that
> subsystem. Or do you want to tell me that you could go right in and
> get the critical section related stuff sorted out on your own without
> John Baldwin and Stephan Uphoff in order to get to merge your UMA
> related changes? :-)

[...]

Consider not insulting the intelligence of the FreeBSD developers if
you want them to ever help you again with your kernel newbie
questions.  That kind of trash-talking may be cool in other projects,
but around here it's not going to win you friends.

Kris
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/attachments/20050207/f128e1a9/attachment-0001.bin