Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 19:04:41 +0000 From: Steven Hartland <steven@multiplay.co.uk> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>, Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org> Cc: "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" <svn-src-head@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>, "src-committers@freebsd.org" <src-committers@freebsd.org>, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r275136 - in head/sys: dev/e1000 dev/ixgbe kern sys Message-ID: <547CBBC9.2070408@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <FF79BE6F-EE84-4F34-AE22-209E723DE991@mu.org> References: <201411262019.sAQKJaw4043557@svn.freebsd.org> <39377603.10OyiSzjWY@ralph.baldwin.cx> <872C180A-6ADD-469F-A801-3728DF134EEC@mu.org> <547C88A9.1070007@selasky.org> <5E1B6CD4-BBA7-4AD0-9982-E981015AF138@mu.org> <547C8A9C.4080603@selasky.org> <F621EBD1-C330-456A-B130-A2F46B5F8355@mu.org> <547C8CA2.8040305@selasky.org> <EB6CB885-C5B2-4D7C-A502-18A4E8F5EF40@mu.org> <547C8DEF.5020809@selasky.org> <EA71D8ED-A7C6-4570-B889-30C741EA1E0F@mu.org> <547C974A.9050302@selasky.org> <4CE4C10D-93B0-4E27-878D-34C0A7CF3C94@mu.org> <547C995A.2060005@selasky.org> <FF79BE6F-EE84-4F34-AE22-209E723DE991@mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 01/12/2014 16:46, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
>> On Dec 1, 2014, at 8:37 AM, Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think you maybe missed a point ....
>>
>>> On 12/01/14 17:31, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes that is why it is being done by hand in the probe routine. I think proper thing might be a way to sort out how to get tunables to run at a driver load event? Is that possible?
>> All sysctls are tried init when they are created, both so-called "static" and "dynamic" ones.
>>
>> If the sysctl is created inside the probe routine and has the tunable flag set, it will get init before the creation is complete, if present in the boot environment.
>>
>> If the sysctl is of a "static" kind, it will be created and initialized when SI_SUB_KMEM is executing!
> I totally understand this. It is in the phabricator review. :)
>
As a more general comment, my personal preference when I ask for review
is that at least one of the reviewers accepts the final revision before
I commit, but preferably all that have taken part in the discussion.
This often takes a bit longer and some times takes a little prodding but
should be worth it in the long run.
I know I commented on this one but I unfortunately didn't get chance to
look after changes where made and hence never accepted the revision. Had
I done so I would have caveat-ed it with it being accepted by Jack or
other Intel delegate in his absence, so sorry about that Jack.
No one should take this personally, as know this is still new to
everyone, but it does raise the wider question of who should be counted
as a "reviewer" from phabric and do we need some additional guidelines
on this, or even better can it be automated?
Regards
Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?547CBBC9.2070408>