From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Dec 1 12:21:29 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from cs.rice.edu (cs.rice.edu [128.42.1.30]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7CB737B400; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 12:21:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (from alc@localhost) by cs.rice.edu (8.9.0/8.9.0) id OAA10454; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 14:21:26 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 14:21:26 -0600 From: Alan Cox To: Alfred Perlstein Cc: alc@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: why doesn't aio use at_exit(9)? Message-ID: <20001201142126.E26574@cs.rice.edu> References: <20001201020257.R8051@fw.wintelcom.net> <20001201135634.D26574@cs.rice.edu> <20001201120848.C8051@fw.wintelcom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.5us In-Reply-To: <20001201120848.C8051@fw.wintelcom.net>; from Alfred Perlstein on Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 12:08:48PM -0800 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 12:08:48PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * Alan Cox [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. :) > If you're already working on converting aio to use at_exit, go ahead. It won't interfere with my work. Alan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message