cleaned up; just wanted to make a place holder. The biggest issue is
that it is an incomplete revamp; that is... the inconsistent naming
table generation is not done yet ... will be added soon with the clean
up. The purpose of this script is to handle the vop_vector changes that
phk@ did over the recent weeks.
interface as well. This is not an expected revision id per the
datasheet, but unfortunately there are such cards out there with
a 82557 chipset, and they want to use the 82503.
PR: kern/75739
Reported by: Andre Albsmeier <andre.albsmeier@siemens.com>
- Mark mount, unmount and nmount MPSAFE.
- Add a stub for _umtx_op().
- Mark open(), link(), unlink(), and freebsd32_sigaction() MPSAFE.
Pointy hats to: several
(we ignore it).
- Remove code used for handling spoil events, as spoiling is not possible
anymore, because we keep consumers open for writing all the time.
MFC after: 4 days
checklist box is strictly set via command line, but amount of checklist
items less than height of checklist box. In this case bottom part
of box was not redrawn (occurs when passing focus behind of 'Cancel' button
while configuring any FreeBSD port OPTIONS)
MFC after: 3 days
After disscussing things I have decided to take the easy and
consistent 90% solution instead of aiming for the very involved 99%
solution.
If we allow forceful unmounts of DEVFS we need to decide how to handle
the devices which are in use through this filesystem at the time.
We cannot just readopt the open devices in the main /dev instance since
that would open us to security issues.
For the majority of the devices, this is relatively straightforward
as we can just pretend they got revoke(2)'ed.
Some devices get tricky: /dev/console and /dev/tty for instance
does a sort of recursive open of the real console device. Other devices
may be mmap'ed (kill the processes ?).
And then there are disk devices which are mounted.
The correct thing here would be to recursively unmount the filesystems
mounte from devices from our DEVFS instance (forcefully) and if
this succeeds, complete the forcefully unmount of DEVFS. But if
one of the forceful unmounts fail we cannot complete the forceful
unmount of DEVFS, but we are likely to already have severed a lot
of stuff in the process of trying.
Event attempting this would be a lot of code for a very far out
corner-case which most people would never see or get in touch with.
It's just not worth it.
device is involved, (e.g. plugin a hub with multiple devices
already attached to it)
Submitted by: Naoyuki Tai <ntai@smartfruit.com>
PR: 43993
MFC in: 1 week
