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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:27 UTC