quota deadlock on 6.1-RC1
nospam at ugcs.caltech.edu
Fri May 5 18:54:30 UTC 2006
One detail of this has to do with version numbering.
The FreeBSD version number says a lot more about the
userland than it does about the kernel per se.
If we were to version the kernel arch, I think it would
look more like this:
'94 22.214.171.124 (Last Net/2) Version 0
Nov '94 2.0.5 (First unencumbered release)
Aug '96 2.1.5
Nov '96 2.2 Version 1
Oct '98 3.0 Major VM changes... Version 2
Mar '00 4.0 refinement of 3.x
Jan '03 5.0 Major SMP changes Version 3
Jul '05 6.0 refinement of 5.x
??? 7.0 refinement of 5.x,6.x
??? 8.0 ??? Version 4
As you can see... major version numbers come and go, but
that doesn't say very much about the kernel. Given that
it took at least three years for the "Version 2" arch
to mature after it was initially released, is it any
surprise that now at not quite 3 years after "Version 3"
was released it isn't yet mature? Esp given how
radical the differences are between 2 and 3?
"STABLE" is a comment mostly about API/ABI and somewhat
(more as merely a matter of pride in craft) about the
kernel. (The latter also shows itself in the extensive
testing done outside of the treer in the usability of
* This concept of versions represents only my personal
More information about the freebsd-stable