Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 21:30:59 +0100 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern kern_conf.c src/sys/sys conf.h Message-ID: <6099.1013977859@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 17 Feb 2002 15:30:24 EST." <200202172030.g1HKUOs01319@green.bikeshed.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200202172030.g1HKUOs01319@green.bikeshed.org>, "Brian F. Feldman" w rites: >> > Add revoke_and_destroy_dev(), to be used by devices which decide when >> > they choose to destroy themselves without regard to whether or not >> > they are open. >> >> Hmm, I can see the point but I am not 100% convinced about the >> solution, I may modify this API later. > >I had in my tree a dev_revoke() call which I used at times, previously, >which IIRC was just the first part of that function, to be called before a >destroy_dev() when a driver's decided a removeable device had gone away. I >like the combination of the two functions because it serves to document >what's going on pretty well, but have no strong attachment; I'll be happy to >start sprinkling either around the src/sys tree where appropriate. > >I should compile a list of places in the kernel where it should be used >other than the initial one I have it used for locally. Well, my thinking is more in the direction of "for which devices would we _not_ want a revoke() when we call destroy_dev()." I'm not sure I have any non-NULL answers at hand... -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6099.1013977859>