From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 18506 invoked from network); 24 Jun 2021 15:30:10 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 24 Jun 2021 15:30:10 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id AD36A9C93A; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 01:30:08 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DC239C096; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 01:29:25 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="dDSy3uHn"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id D377C9C096; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 01:29:22 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-qt1-f182.google.com (mail-qt1-f182.google.com [209.85.160.182]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74B589BD71 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 01:29:21 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-qt1-f182.google.com with SMTP id g12so5095818qtb.2 for ; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 08:29:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ZSTDeAr4yOnCqMlj27/afqf5z+bDi8rafKuK2U38ZsM=; b=dDSy3uHnuoiGZpjqZ1IPUgL4KsiwEajuv3EvYQx1fOcHJi/L6bFOOWqq3xDTG/kU9l 8fnNad53GFWGq2Gz7i6fva+8cqAkyTMeI7c1We8jGmJq99OeA7RkTFBDPrPHAuyB7tsk 24zrGtTGIb3VIXv6hN7fgbE8/eiAYJB8RqHfVLhH63bzcDaDNUcRci+mByi4vNKRozWQ Ss/ZSywbauYV7nAWGjrLnAZ8mWjbB4ZOK8qHp6Ym5uf/fQQDOgLROU6ZkeV5UEaH+mUv Q6yb9z2SxObVvAyrIyDJWQ6U0KLrlVjEdUe2Te1/Z949tHZ4xxQ+z6ymsG2DawaXvAJv XrOg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ZSTDeAr4yOnCqMlj27/afqf5z+bDi8rafKuK2U38ZsM=; b=Oq+RfjQlkv52WhtoiFmjTtG5/m0knvXMquK0LQO78vjTJm1OvMe3ISLGxR6RzfgTMB kvR2CVRP4cavo6ycIitjF46ZcVG8o+d9Il0tyJu0mIbdAGOT7ylasXIkfohOnmf1WVsk wbQHBx18mI5bJmqNysPhSPWcwE9d1wYdZ+lyhV+RyYBBA95Y9G3zYGI4NjAHsA3el5zZ HIZRFlWrxU1eHfI6XFcNACOUeGEc/5uaaoYrHG7l9eit8Fy7DDouqPNBkUdqe/JLyP7O 1fRYXnNvInmLk8DlyT9O0FvEOOaMi4lbEVnNYQldlkbw504/xwJTo4je5HHKIY3AZLUn sa6A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533221getOtlUwLGs7AF4qeCDUl0dpOsiZA/UbdR/PYBPKpfHe+m IQknTsXx8XeZg83ryvlXC3AQXn3KoCy/78BE4zlCFs1rhrSzYmpz X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxhuOqv0N6SyDvX73gVhEcFgRMhR2MnVngd+lr3qDUU10XnweCFo5vDmFEcUehqOabjng2xQPY+9KgCxMbJcqs= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:2:: with SMTP id a2mr5270289qtg.101.1624548559976; Thu, 24 Jun 2021 08:29:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Warner Losh Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 09:29:09 -0600 Message-ID: To: TUHS main list Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d68d5805c584af99" Subject: [TUHS] Code Review Request: 2.8BSD X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --000000000000d68d5805c584af99 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Greetings, It has always bugged me that the bsd-family-tree file got 2.8BSD slightly wrong. It has the relationship V6 -> 1BSD -> 2BSD -> 2.79BSD -> 2.8BSD with V7 -> 32V -> 3BSD ... -> 4.1BSD -> 2.8BSD Now, as far as it goes, that's not terrible. But it's missing something. First, there was no V6 code in 1BSD or 2BSD through 2.79BSD. It was for V6 at first then for both V6 and V7, but w/o V7 code. There weren't even patches for V6 or new drivers on the early 1BSD and 2BSDs. However, starting with 2.8BSD, there's a V7 kernel. Or should I say a heavily patched V7 kernel with a ton of #ifdefs for all the fixes and enhancements collected by Berkeley and a few minor build system tweaks. Also, the code from 4.1BSD that's in 2.8 is rather minimal from what I can tell with my analysis so far, except indirectly in some of the patches to the V7 kernel appear to also be in 4.1BSD. The biggest thing that's in 2.8BSD from 4.1BSD is the job control (confined to its own directory with big warnings that basically say you'll need to update the code and even then the system is unstable). 2.9BSD has much better 4.xBSD integration, but 2.8 was quite early days for rejoining the two lines. 4.1BSD didn't have many berkeley rewrites of userland code, and the 2.8 tape has only a few of them (eg ls). So although it's not as complete as one would hope, there was a decent amount of code from 4.1BSD flowing into 2.8BSD. Now, my request. I've created a code review for FreeBSD to fix this. https://reviews.freebsd.org/D30883 is the review. We use phabricator in the FreeBSD project. Anybody can view this, but if you don't want to create an account, please send me email with a comment about the change and/or the commit message. It just adds an arc from V7 to 2.8BSD. Thanks for any time and/or insight you might have here. I'm judging the above entirely on the archived code rather than any historical knowledge... Warner --000000000000d68d5805c584af99 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Greetings,

It=C2=A0 has always bugged m= e that the bsd-family-tree file got 2.8BSD=C2=A0 slightly wrong.
=
It has the relationship V6 -> 1BSD -> 2BSD -> 2.79B= SD -> 2.8BSD
with V7=C2=A0 -> 32V -> 3BSD ... -> 4.1B= SD -> 2.8BSD

Now, as far as it goes, that's= not terrible. But it's missing something.

Fir= st, there was no V6 code in 1BSD or 2BSD through 2.79BSD. It was for V6 at = first then for both V6 and V7, but w/o V7 code. There weren't even patc= hes for V6 or new drivers on the early 1BSD=C2=A0and 2BSDs. However, starti= ng with 2.8BSD, there's a V7 kernel. Or should I say a heavily patched = V7 kernel with a ton of #ifdefs for all the fixes and enhancements collecte= d by Berkeley and a few minor build system tweaks.

Also, the code from 4.1BSD that's in 2.8 is rather minimal from what I= can tell with my analysis so far, except indirectly in some of the patches= to the V7 kernel appear to also be in 4.1BSD. The biggest thing that's= in 2.8BSD from 4.1BSD is the job control (confined to its own directory wi= th big warnings that basically say you'll need to update the code and e= ven then the system is unstable). 2.9BSD has much better 4.xBSD integration= , but 2.8 was quite early days for rejoining the two lines. 4.1BSD didn'= ;t have many berkeley rewrites of userland code, and the 2.8 tape has only = a few of them (eg ls). So although it's not as complete as one would ho= pe, there was a decent amount of code from 4.1BSD flowing into 2.8BSD.

Now, my request. I've created a code review for=C2= =A0FreeBSD to fix this.=C2=A0=C2=A0https://reviews.freebsd.org/D30883 is the review. We use phabric= ator in the FreeBSD project. Anybody can view this, but if you don't wa= nt to create an account, please send me email with a comment about the chan= ge and/or the commit message. It just adds an arc from V7 to 2.8BSD.
<= div>
Thanks for any time and/or insight you might have here. = I'm judging the above entirely on the archived code rather than any his= torical knowledge...

Warner
--000000000000d68d5805c584af99--