[ros-dev] Short leave of absence
ionucu at videotron.ca
Wed Apr 6 11:33:32 CEST 2005
Casper Hornstrup wrote:
>Will you ever knowledge that rewriting large parts of ReactOS in your working copy
>causes all sorts of problems, and start getting the changes into the repository in
>smaller chunks or will you ignore these problems and continue to do this in the
>>I am currently entering the last 5 weeks of school of my last year, so
>>I'm going to be focusing on that instead of ReactOS. Lately, I've tried
>>to work on both, but this has delayed my code as well as hurt my grades.
>>I intend to be back around the week of May 10th.
>>In the meanwhile, I would kindly like to ask developers to e-mail me if
>>they have any plans to touch the following:
>>- Kernel Scheduler, Thread Creation, Context Switching, System
>>Initialization. I have re-written everything for a faster and more
>>complete system based on NT semantics. Includes everything from realtime
>>support, proper dynamic and static priorities, real system thread
>>support, much faster scheduling, pre-emption, removal of the PEB/TEB 64K
>>block hack and ros-only members, better organized code and Mm routines
>>for manipulating kernel stack/teb/peb, etc...
Impossible to split into small parts. They are completely interlinked.
This is a feature patch and will be in its own branch, like it was
decided that we're supposed to do. Just like Hartmut's Cc rewrite.
>>- Pushlocks. I have almost all the necessary support code written and
>>I'm only missing one function.
Not a rewrite, a one file implementation. Less then 1000 lines.
>>- IRQL management in HAL and Spinlocks. I have highly modified the IRQL
>>routines for a large increase in speed, as well as made spinlocks faster
>>on UP and non-debug builds. I have also corrected some IRQL routines to
>>use the proper KPCR members for the IRR and others.
Split as two patches, one for IRQL and one for Spinlocks. Spinlock one
will probably be < 200 lines, IRQL one will be the size of a file, and
most certaintly ~500 lines.
>>- Object Manager. I have a complete re-write in progress which uses
>>public NT structures instead of our internal ones, adds more security,
>>and corrects some missing features and adds some. Majorly changes some
>>aspects of the Ob (for example regarding on the status of handle/pointer
>>count after creating an object, and the work of ObCreate/ObInsertObject,
>>which is totally different in ROS vs NT. See blog article for more
>>info). However, any bugs that are easy to fix should still be fixed in
>>the current Ob. The new one is months away.
Once again, a self-contained feature branch will be done for this.
>>- Queued Spin Locks, KGATES, Guarded Mutex. I already know Filip is
>>working on this and I was planning on collaborating with him. Unlike the
>>previous things, I haven't actually *coded* anything regarding these,
>>but I have the design in my head and would like to work on it, so I
>>would love to share what I know if anyone is actively interested in
>>working on it.
Not a rewrite, a three file implementation. Will be split in three
patches, all which will be < 1000 lines.
Then QSL will be implementted step by step in parts of the kernel.
I don't see the problem with... 6 small patches, one for each new
implemented feature, and 2 branches for specific large rewrites. I'm
starting to think you just had to say somethign mean before I left.
More information about the Ros-dev