svn commit: r277213 - in head: share/man/man9 sys/kern sys/ofed/include/linux sys/sys

[Adrian Chadd]

On 21 January 2015 at 16:07, K. Macy <kmacy at freebsd.org> wrote:
>>> HPS: Your change failed to meet these guidelines. Some of us are upset
>>> because these guidelines are fairly fundamental for the on-going
>>> viability of FreeBSD. Due to linguistic / time zone / cultural
>>> differences these expectations have not been adequately communicated
>>> to you. You are not in the USB sandbox where others need for your
>>> support outweighs the inconvenience of random breakage.
>>>
>>> It sounds like you are making progress towards updating the concerns
>>> that have been voiced. If kib's observations are in fact comprehensive
>>> then adding a callout_init_cpu function and updating all clients so
>>> that their callouts continue to be scheduled on a CPU other than the
>>> BSP will suffice and we can all move on.
>>
>> Is there some reason that we can’t back things out, break things down into
>> smaller pieces and have everything pass through phabric with a wide
>> ranging review? Given the fundamental nature of these changes, they
>> really need better review and doing it after the fact seems to be to be
>> too risky. I’m not debating that this “fixes” some issues, but given the
>> performance regression, it sure seems like we may need a different
>> solution to be implemented and hashing that out in a branch might be
>> the best approach.
>
> Thank you. A more incremental approach would be appreciated by many of
> us. To avoid the bystander effect we can permit explicit timeouts for
> review-to-commit (72 hours?) so that we don't collectively end up
> sandbagging him.

I'm +1 for this.



-a