Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 11:17:12 -0800 From: Jack Vogel <jfvogel@gmail.com> To: Steven Hartland <steven@multiplay.co.uk> Cc: Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org>, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>, "src-committers@freebsd.org" <src-committers@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" <svn-src-head@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r275136 - in head/sys: dev/e1000 dev/ixgbe kern sys Message-ID: <CAFOYbcmm3058QVSJ5DUOQ_EtMJk%2B7No8CcnwtP7ywJqwhKy80Q@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <547CBBC9.2070408@freebsd.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> <547CBBC9.2070408@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Not taking it personally, in this case I see some style things I don't like, and I'm not at all clear why this is even necessary, what the old way of doing queue config was missing for instance? Thanks Steve, Jack On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Steven Hartland <steven@multiplay.co.uk> wrote: > > 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?CAFOYbcmm3058QVSJ5DUOQ_EtMJk%2B7No8CcnwtP7ywJqwhKy80Q>