Re: kqueue is safe to use?

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
> _at__at_ -18,11 +18,10 _at__at_
>  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.                       \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\