On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 03:21:17PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > On Wednesday 28 January 2009 2:33:18 pm Roman Divacky wrote: > > hi > > > > we dont need Giant to be held for sysctl_ctx_init/SYSCTL_ADD_*, right? > > Ugh, it looks like the sysctl tree locking is woefully inadequate, so we > aren't quite ready for this yet. what do you mean? should all sysctl_ctx_init/SYSCTL_ADD_* consumers lock Giant? I didnt not find a single one (except the scsi stuff) that locks it... can you explain? thnx romanReceived on Wed Jan 28 2009 - 21:07:36 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:41 UTC