Mark Kettenis wrote: > > From: "Ted Unangst" <t...@tedunangst.com> > > Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2015 18:38:45 -0400 > > > > 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. > > This converts sys/isofs. These pools are clearly not used in > interrupt handlers since all pool_get calls specify PR_WAITOK already. > > ok?
ok
