Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 01:50:06 +0200 From: Maxime Henrion <mux@freebsd.org> To: "Ackerman, Tony" <tony.ackerman@intel.com> Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make em(4) use device sysctl tree Message-ID: <20041019235005.GB41649@elvis.mu.org> In-Reply-To: <2726872B7A674F489DDEFB72CE1F670D016EFB22@orsmsx403.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <2726872B7A674F489DDEFB72CE1F670D016EFB22@orsmsx403.amr.corp.intel.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ackerman, Tony wrote: > Bruce, > Aren't the calls to sysctl_ctx_free() still required? They aren't required because the sysctl tree and the sysctl context are both created by the newbus framework, and also destroyed by the said framework if a device detaches. However, your comment made me notice that Bruce forgot to remove the sysctl_ctx and sysctl_tree fields of the softc in his patch. :-) Cheers, Maxime > -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce M Simpson [mailto:bms@spc.org] > Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 3:21 PM > To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org > Cc: tackerman@FreeBSD.org; freebsdnic@mailbox.cps.intel.com; > mux@FreeBSD.org > Subject: [PATCH] Make em(4) use device sysctl tree > > Here is a non-critical patch to bring em(4) into line with other > drivers, by using the sysctl tree created for each device by the > bus framework. > > Please review; Thanks. > BMS > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041019235005.GB41649>