From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 21 16:21:06 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C8E2106564A; Thu, 21 May 2009 16:21:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (bsdimp.com [199.45.160.85]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18F948FC18; Thu, 21 May 2009 16:21:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.14.3/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n4LGFQVA078471; Thu, 21 May 2009 10:15:27 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 10:15:37 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20090521.101537.864824728.imp@bsdimp.com> To: phk@phk.freebsd.dk From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <1689.1242921616@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <4A157919.7040103@samsco.org> <1689.1242921616@critter.freebsd.dk> X-Mailer: Mew version 5.2 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: scottl@samsco.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, jhb@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, attilio@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, rwatson@FreeBSD.org, kostikbel@gmail.com Subject: Re: svn commit: r192535 - head/sys/kern X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Thu, 21 May 2009 16:21:06 -0000 In message: <1689.1242921616@critter.freebsd.dk> "Poul-Henning Kamp" writes: : In message <4A157919.7040103@samsco.org>, Scott Long writes: : : >I would also love to have destroy_dev() and make_dev() be locking-neutral. : : As far as I know, there is nothing preventing that any more. : : The current state of affairs still reflects a reality from before : SMPng entirely changed what "kernel locking" meant. : : I would also support merging CDEV notification into devd(8), it : does not make much sense to have different mechanisms. Right now, the devctl_notify() is what gets it into devd. However, I'd always viewed devd as having multiple event sources and not just from the /dev/devctl device. Warner