On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 11:44:27AM -0500, Richard Coleman wrote: > Brooks Davis wrote: > >>>>>>It's been a while now and (judging from this list at > >>>>>>least), people are not complaining about ULE, so maybe > >>>>>>(with re_at_ approval) the fix & supporting infrastructure > >>>>>>could be brought to RELENG_5? > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>That's not a good idea. I can lock up ULE+PREEMPTION on > >> > >>>>This is observed in pre-5.3RELEASE CURRENT, but I thought Jeff > >>>>has > >> > >>>I'm talking about 6-CURRENT. My last kernel/world build is > >> > >>Are there plans for assigning more priority/resources on solving > >>this? Maybe mark it as show-stopper for 5.4? (it's currently not > >>even on the http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.4R/todo.html list) > > > > > >No, because the project has no ability to "assign > >priority/resources". If someone who has is intrested and capable time > >to work on it, does so in time, then it may be done, if not, it > >won't. > > Should we take this to mean that none of the developers are interested > in ULE any more? That's the general feeling I get these days. Just > curious. Schedulers are non-trivial and the bugs in ULE are also extremely non-trivial. Since Jeff is very busy, the amount of time to be spent on this is very limited. It's not so much that no one is interested as that no one who is interested and capable has time. If someone who has time and interest wants to be come capable or someone with time could be convinced become interested, that problem could be alleviated. -- Brooks -- Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:26 UTC