Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 09:57:15 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Cc: Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: order of executing MOD_LOAD and registering module sysctl-s Message-ID: <158cf433-f2c8-9006-b091-15fe3095c759@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <2718016.8bPh6cqhGc@ralph.baldwin.cx> References: <62e7ab4d-8956-545e-b204-4fb63cfe5fbf@FreeBSD.org> <c73441ae-e623-3828-d10e-74947c78240b@selasky.org> <2718016.8bPh6cqhGc@ralph.baldwin.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 02/08/2017 18:49, John Baldwin wrote: > sysctl nodes are created explicitly via linker_file_register_sysctls, not via > SYSINITs, so you can't order them with respect to other init functions. > > I think Andriy's suggestion of doing sysctls "inside" sysinits (so they are > registered last and unregistered first) is probably better than the current > state and is a simpler fix than changing all sysctls to use SYSINITs. Kostik (kib) suggested a possible valid use-case that depends on the current order: adding dynamic sysctl-s under static sysctl-s via the module load handler. He also offered an idea for a possible solution: holding the modules lock in the shared mode (MOD_SLOCK) around calls to sysctl-s registered from modules. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?158cf433-f2c8-9006-b091-15fe3095c759>