Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 12:25:42 -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: <20001201122542.E8051@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <20001201142126.E26574@cs.rice.edu>; from alc@cs.rice.edu on Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 02:21:26PM -0600 References: <20001201020257.R8051@fw.wintelcom.net> <20001201135634.D26574@cs.rice.edu> <20001201120848.C8051@fw.wintelcom.net> <20001201142126.E26574@cs.rice.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Alan Cox <alc@cs.rice.edu> [001201 12:21] wrote: > On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 12:08:48PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > * 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. :) > > > > If you're already working on converting aio to use at_exit, > go ahead. It won't interfere with my work. I plan to make it a kld module, like i just did with sysvipc. > > Alan > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message -- -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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001201122542.E8051>