cvs commit: src/sys/alpha/osf1 osf1_misc.c src/sys/amd64/linux32 linux32_machdep.c src/sys/compat/freebsd32 freebsd32_misc.c src/sys/compat/linux linux_misc.c src/sys/compat/svr4 svr4_misc.c src/sys/fs/procfs procfs_status.c src/sys/kern init_main.c ...

[Wilko Bulte]

On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 02:07:52PM -0700, Scott Long wrote..
> David O'Brien wrote:
> >On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 03:09:56PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> >
> >>On Monday 28 February 2005 04:26 am, David E. O'Brien wrote:
> >>
> >>>obrien      2005-02-28 09:26:13 UTC
> >>>
> >>> FreeBSD src repository
> >>>
> >>> Modified files:        (Branch: RELENG_5)
> >>>   sys/alpha/osf1       osf1_misc.c
> >>>   sys/amd64/linux32    linux32_machdep.c
> >>>   sys/compat/freebsd32 freebsd32_misc.c
> >>>   sys/compat/linux     linux_misc.c
> >>>   sys/compat/svr4      svr4_misc.c
> >>>   sys/fs/procfs        procfs_status.c
> >>>   sys/kern             init_main.c kern_acct.c kern_clock.c
> >>>                        kern_exit.c kern_proc.c kern_resource.c
> >>>                        kern_synch.c kern_time.c subr_trap.c
> >>>                        tty.c
> >>>   sys/sys              proc.h resourcevar.h syscallsubr.h
> >>> Log:
> >>> MFC: Rework how we store process times in the kernel such that we 
> >>> always
> >>> store the raw values including for child process statistics and only
> >>>compute the system and user timevals on demand.
> >>> (See the 2004-10-05 18:51:12 UTC jhb commit for full details.)
> >>
> >>NO!!! This breaks the ABI for all kernel modules.  I would have already 
> >>MFC'd it first if not for that.  You should have asked me before MFcing 
> >>this. :(
> >
> >
> >There are tons of "MFC after:" commits that people never got around to
> >MFC'ing.  I'm doing those now, and this was one of them.  I'm seriously
> >concerned that we don't diverge 6-CURRENT/5-STABLE as we did in the
> >4.x/3.x days.
> >
> >We've already discussed dealing this commit on IRC, so I'll end here.
> > 
> 
> The "MFC After' messages are merely a convenience reminder.  You should 
> not be interpreting them as compulsory.  We had this discussion years 
> ago and it's no different now.
> 
> Scott

Sounds like adding a "Do Not MFC, will break ABI" is called for in some
circumstances.


-- 
Wilko Bulte				wilko at FreeBSD.org