Mark Kettenis wrote: > This diff is purely mechanical. This means that it also changes some > pool_allocator_nointr into pool_allocator_single where the intention > was to signal that the pool would never be used in interrupt context. > However, using pool_allocator_single in those cases isn't a big deal > as there is no downside. But we could consider changing those into > passing NULL and setting the PR_WAITOK flag to the pool_init calls in > question.
I would prefer we do this (NULL and WAITOK). I've done some before as I came across them, but didn't scan the whole tree.
