[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: Status of revivesa
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 11:15:23PM -0700, Bill Stouder-Studenmund wrote:
> > Andrew will have to confirm, but the comments say that the new order is
> > mandatory for sysenter. That said, AFAIK, we don't use sysenter by
> > default. The only way to use it is to compile libc with -DI686_LIBC, so
> > we have the option of providing the compatibility as long as the user
> > accepts not to use sysenter.
> My "perfect world" solution would be to make the sysenter-compatible
> reshuffling an option and make COMPAT_30_PTHREAD or some such another
> option, and make the two incompatible. That way an admin can clearly
> select which way to go. If either were a default, I'd make the sysenter
> one default. :-)
I'd like to see a COMPAT_30_PTHREAD.
> The upshot, though, is that this means that revivesa didn't break this. So
> does anyone else have any issues that should be examined before a merge?
> The only one I see is to verify that I'm not really seeing a crash of
> named on boot.
I support getting it merged now.
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
Main Index |
Thread Index |