Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:04:54 +0100 From: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, scottl@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sysctl question Message-ID: <20090128220454.GA66961@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200901281521.17674.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <20090128193318.GA42071@freebsd.org> <200901281521.17674.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 03:21:17PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > On Wednesday 28 January 2009 2:33:18 pm Roman Divacky wrote: > > hi > > > > we dont need Giant to be held for sysctl_ctx_init/SYSCTL_ADD_*, right? > > Ugh, it looks like the sysctl tree locking is woefully inadequate, so we > aren't quite ready for this yet. what do you mean? should all sysctl_ctx_init/SYSCTL_ADD_* consumers lock Giant? I didnt not find a single one (except the scsi stuff) that locks it... can you explain? thnx roman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090128220454.GA66961>