On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:58 AM, Ryota Ozaki <ozak...@netbsd.org> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Masao Uebayashi <uebay...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Ryota Ozaki <ozak...@netbsd.org> wrote: >>>> I'd change if__pad1 to if_flags2 and define IFF2_SLOWTIMO_MPSAFE etc. >>> >>> Hmm, I think it's a last resort. I don't want to do something like >>> (ifp->if_flags & IFF_XXX) && (ifp->if_flags2 & IFF_XXX2) if possible. >>> >>> I'm thinking more to avoid the separation. >> >> It's a temporary measure until a good struct ifnet will be designed. > > If it's a temporal solution, I have no objection :) > >> >> I propose to keep ABI by reusing if__pad1. If you propose ABI >> breakage, you should understand it and estimate the impact by >> yourself. :) > > Of course, I'm thinking a way without ABI breakage. > > ozaki-r
Anyway MPSAFE-ification is a separate task that we can do later. Let's finish callout per interface first :) Here is a latest patch: http://www.netbsd.org/~ozaki-r/watchdog-callout-per-if.diff So my remaining concern is whether we can embed callout_t with _KERNEL which I proposed earlier. If the answer is no, the above patch that uses a pointer of struct callout is okay for me. ozaki-r
