On Thu, 14 Mar 2013, Julio Merino wrote: > Could anyone please review the attached patch? It appears to work as > intended, but the sysctl API is really confusing and I don't know if > I got all details right.
seems ok but as you make the machdep.vmt.clock_sync.period node, what happens if more than one vmt device attaches? I don't know if that can happen of course.. for ubt(4) I made a node for each instance of the driver, using device_xname() also, the description should be wrapped in SYSCTL_DESCR() I think, as I think it is possible to exclude them from a kernel that way. regards, iain
