From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Oct 25 16:24:48 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 075D316A4CE; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:24:48 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from athena.softcardsystems.com (mail.softcardsystems.com
	[12.34.136.114])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9FE1243D54; Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:24:47 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from sah@softcardsystems.com)
Received: from athena (athena [12.34.136.114])i9PHML2W031149;
	Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:22:21 -0500
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:22:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Sam <sah@softcardsystems.com>
X-X-Sender: sah@athena
To: =?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no>
In-Reply-To: <xzpk6tedbrc.fsf@dwp.des.no>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0410251215290.29901@athena>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0410251037540.29901@athena>
	<Pine.LNX.4.60.0410251126010.29901@athena>
	<xzpk6tedbrc.fsf@dwp.des.no>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: 6.0 Witness squawk
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 16:24:48 -0000

> Sam <sah@softcardsystems.com> writes:
>> There are three entry points into the driver.  1) The disk
>> layer 2) the netisr routine 3) the rexmit timer.
>
> AFAIK, if the code that calls malloc() can be reached from 2) or 3),
> you're not allowed to use M_WAITOK.

Hm.  If that's true then I've either got to petition you
fellas to change disk_alloc(), disk_create(), and disk_destroy()
to use M_NOWAIT or schedule a callback where these calls
can be handled properly.

Thoughts about either approach?

Sam