svn commit: r254150 - head/sys/vm

[Scott Long]

Yes, at least some of this stuff is coming to light because we're aggressively
tracking top-of-tree in both 9 and 10.  Which is good.  But highly annoying at
times.  But good in the long run.  It means that 9.2 won't suck, and 10.0 won't
suck.  =-)

Scott

On Aug 9, 2013, at 3:22 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian at freebsd.org> wrote:

> No, we should upgrade the cluster, watch it fail, and then let people
> experience their own handiwork.
> 
> Sheesh. :(
> 
> 
> 
> -adrian
> 
> 
> On 9 August 2013 14:19, Peter Wemm <peter at wemm.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian at freebsd.org> wrote:
>>> ... ?
>>> 
>>> Can we please back it all out and then re-test attilio's patch with
>>> alan's fix, before committing it all again?
>>> 
>>> I kinda have a vested interest at ${WORK} to be able to test -10 HEAD
>>> right now for all these performance investigations and fixes that need
>>> to happen for us; having the VM change and break _right now_ is going
>>> to actually cause us pain.
>> 
>> The current state of HEAD also kinda rules out refreshing freebsd.org
>> machines this week too.
>> 
>> --
>> Peter Wemm - peter at wemm.org; peter at FreeBSD.org; peter at yahoo-inc.com; KI6FJV
>> UTF-8: for when a ' just won\342\200\231t do.
>> <brueffer> ZFS must be the bacon of file systems. "everything's better with ZFS"