Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:11:48 +1100 From: Lawrence Stewart <lstewart@freebsd.org> To: mdf@FreeBSD.org Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r217748 - head/sys/netinet/cc Message-ID: <4D3D2634.4070005@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=jc3VV1Sf6QsKQHCnnLVpL7%2B3K0qBgwdR60F%2Bp@mail.gmail.com> References: <201101231300.p0ND0PZi055936@svn.freebsd.org> <AANLkTi=jc3VV1Sf6QsKQHCnnLVpL7%2B3K0qBgwdR60F%2Bp@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Matthew, On 01/24/11 02:39, mdf@FreeBSD.org wrote: > For sbuf use for a sysctl you can use sbuf_init_for_sysctl() which I assume you mean sbuf_new_for_sysctl() that's in kern/kern_sysctl.c? It would be useful to document this function in sbuf(9) - I wasn't aware of it and didn't find it when I went looking how to do what my patch somewhat hackishly achieves. > will, instead of growing, push the current data out using SYSCTL_OUT > to a wired user buffer. There's a few examples in the vm/ code. This > can sometimes significantly simplify the code since there's no need to > worry about held mutex/rwlock anymore. I need to MFC the work my patch is against at some point... if/when you MFC the sbuf_set_drain() and sbuf_new_for_sysctl() patches, I'll be happy to switch to using sbuf_new_for_sysctl(). I'll wait until the MFC is done though before switching. Cheers, Lawrence
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D3D2634.4070005>