From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Dec  1 12: 8:52 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id E9AF437B400; Fri,  1 Dec 2000 12:08:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from bright@localhost)
	by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id eB1K8m224944;
	Fri, 1 Dec 2000 12:08:48 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 12:08:48 -0800
From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>
To: Alan Cox <alc@cs.rice.edu>
Cc: alc@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: why doesn't aio use at_exit(9)?
Message-ID: <20001201120848.C8051@fw.wintelcom.net>
References: <20001201020257.R8051@fw.wintelcom.net> <20001201135634.D26574@cs.rice.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <20001201135634.D26574@cs.rice.edu>; from alc@cs.rice.edu on Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 01:56:34PM -0600
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

* Alan Cox <alc@cs.rice.edu> [001201 11:56] wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 02:02:58AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > why doesn't aio use at_exit(9) instead of requiring an explicit
> > call in kern_exit.c for aio_rundown?
> > 
> 
> There's no reason that I'm aware of.  Unless you're in a hurry,
> I'll add that change to a cleanup patch that I have in the pipe.

Er, how much of a cleanup do you have?  The only work I've done
so far is to remove all the #ifdef VFS_AIO's in the file, if you
could commit your cleanup soon it would help. :)

thanks,
-- 
-Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org]
"I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk."


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message