Re: CVS commit: src/lib

[Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%panix.com@localhost>]

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:12:49AM +0900, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 01:08:18PM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> > In article <20130322030831.GA10384%britannica.bec.de@localhost>,
> > Joerg Sonnenberger  <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost> wrote:
> > >
> > >This is wrong and unnecessary as pointed out on the mailing lists. Why
> > >are technical objections silently ignored now? Especially if they add
> > >overhead without any gain and make the error case more mysterious.
> > 
> > Technical discussions are not being ignored. This is considered
> > the best compromise at this time to fix the regression for NetBSD-6.
> > We cannot wait forever to fix problems. You are welcome to do
> > better. No-one is right all the time. As mentioned in the commit
> > message, this is not the final solution.
> 
> I did already post a patch that fixes the problem for devel/glib.
> So yes, I provided a better fix and it was ignored.

And furthermore, there was no regression.  One example was provided of
an application (actually a PAM module) that now threw an error rather
than happening to get lucky and silently working rather than failing.

Joerg found the root cause of this problem -- a bug in glib -- and
fixed it.  Rather than checking in his fix to the buggy application, this
ill-considered change was made to libc and libpthread.  Not good.

It shouldn't be possible to shout down correct technical objections
by making a thread last forever so core won't have time to read and
think about it in its entirety.  I think that is what happened here.

Thor