Re: cfattach lwp (was: pseudoify cgd)

2010-01-02 Thread David Laight
On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 02:47:53PM -0600, David Young wrote: > On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 12:09:14AM +0100, Jan Danielsson wrote: > >However, cgd_ioctl_clr() calls vn_close(), which needs credentials > > from an lwp structure. In the context of cgd_detach(), I don't see what > > lwp to use. > > U

Re: cfattach lwp (was: pseudoify cgd)

2010-01-02 Thread David Young
On Sat, Jan 02, 2010 at 12:09:14AM +0100, Jan Danielsson wrote: >However, cgd_ioctl_clr() calls vn_close(), which needs credentials > from an lwp structure. In the context of cgd_detach(), I don't see what > lwp to use. Use curlwp->l_cred. Dave -- David Young OJC Technologies dy

cfattach lwp (was: pseudoify cgd)

2010-01-01 Thread Jan Danielsson
On 01/01/10 21:47, David Young wrote: > This is good. It looks to me like cgd_detach() must run both the code > at the CGDIOCCLR case in cgdioctl(), > > case CGDIOCCLR: > > if (DK_BUSY(&cs->sc_dksc, pmask)) > ret = EBUSY; > else >

Re: pseudoify cgd

2010-01-01 Thread David Young
Jan, This is good. It looks to me like cgd_detach() must run both the code at the CGDIOCCLR case in cgdioctl(), case CGDIOCCLR: if (DK_BUSY(&cs->sc_dksc, pmask)) ret = EBUSY; else ret = cgd_ioctl_clr(cs, l);

Re: pseudoify cgd

2010-01-01 Thread Jan Danielsson
On 01/01/10 15:23, Quentin Garnier wrote: >>Here's the latest patch. I cleaned out numcgd, fixed conf/files, >> moved disk_destroy() so it's more symmetric with disk_init(). Comments? >> Is it commit worthy? > > Definitely; one of the worthy side effect is the removal of a static > limit over

Re: pseudoify cgd

2010-01-01 Thread Quentin Garnier
On Fri, Jan 01, 2010 at 03:08:45PM +0100, Jan Danielsson wrote: > Hello, > >Here's the latest patch. I cleaned out numcgd, fixed conf/files, > moved disk_destroy() so it's more symmetric with disk_init(). Comments? > Is it commit worthy? Definitely; one of the worthy side effect is the remov

Re: pseudoify cgd

2010-01-01 Thread Jan Danielsson
Hello, Here's the latest patch. I cleaned out numcgd, fixed conf/files, moved disk_destroy() so it's more symmetric with disk_init(). Comments? Is it commit worthy? -- Kind regards, Jan Danielsson Index: conf/files === RCS file:

Re: pseudoify cgd

2010-01-01 Thread Jan Danielsson
On 01/01/10 11:58, Quentin Garnier wrote: [---] > Having said that, you might question the utility of a static instance > for a pseudo-device, but maybe someone will have a use for that. I'll leave that part as it is for now, and revisit it later. But there's another problem with the patch.

Re: pseudoify cgd

2010-01-01 Thread Quentin Garnier
On Fri, Jan 01, 2010 at 10:29:00AM +, Iain Hibbert wrote: > On Thu, 31 Dec 2009, Quentin Garnier wrote: > > > - I looked at the code the other day, and I don't see any reason to > > allocate a cfdata_t for each device_t. I'm fairly certain you can > > just use a static one common to

Re: pseudoify cgd

2010-01-01 Thread Iain Hibbert
On Thu, 31 Dec 2009, Quentin Garnier wrote: > - I looked at the code the other day, and I don't see any reason to > allocate a cfdata_t for each device_t. I'm fairly certain you can > just use a static one common to all instances. I know all the other > drivers do that, but that's

Re: pseudoify cgd

2009-12-31 Thread Quentin Garnier
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 11:35:59PM +0100, Jan Danielsson wrote: > Hello, > >The attached diff is essentially a diff by David Young, which I > tweaked slightly (it wouldn't apply entirely against a more current > source tree). > >The motivation for this was because I needed access to the c

pseudoify cgd

2009-12-31 Thread Jan Danielsson
Hello, The attached diff is essentially a diff by David Young, which I tweaked slightly (it wouldn't apply entirely against a more current source tree). The motivation for this was because I needed access to the cgd device's device_t. Does it look ok? -- Kind regards, Jan Danielsson