From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 21 19:45:47 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEC9F2AF; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:45:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (bigknife-pt.tunnel.tserv9.chi1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f10:75::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A01A68FC0C; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:45:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pakbsde14.localnet (unknown [38.105.238.108]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0B495B946; Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:45:47 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin To: Jim Harris Subject: Re: svn commit: r244549 - head/sys/dev/nvme Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:24:16 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/8.2-CBSD-20110714-p22; KDE/4.5.5; amd64; ; ) References: <201212211913.qBLJDmpm019837@svn.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201212211913.qBLJDmpm019837@svn.freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201212211424.16934.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:45:47 -0500 (EST) Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:45:47 -0000 On Friday, December 21, 2012 2:13:48 pm Jim Harris wrote: > Author: jimharris > Date: Fri Dec 21 19:13:48 2012 > New Revision: 244549 > URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/244549 > > Log: > Put kthreads under curproc so they are attached to nvmecontrol rather > than pid 0. > > Sponsored by: Intel Hmm, is this really wise? I'm not sure how well the kernel would handle a kthread belonging to a userland process. You could just have each test create a new kproc that holds the associated threads for that test instead perhaps? -- John Baldwin