On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 09:45:29PM -0500, Chapman Flack wrote:
> 
> Should the last argument in line 373 be &kcq_softclock?  Looks
> almost like a copy and paste artifact. Apparently doesn't break
> much of anything, as it's been that way since 1.1 - but it makes
> me wonder.

I don't think anything in the tree uses kconts.  They were intended
to replace the hand-coded continuations in the FAST_IPSEC code, and
there's also a splice() implementation that uses them, but it's all
been on hold for years because we can't establish a single ipl hierarchy
across ports, and the generic kcont code doesn't work without that.

It has to happen.  I hope someone causes it to -- soon.

-- 
  Thor Lancelot Simon	                                     tls@rek.tjls.com

  "We cannot usually in social life pursue a single value or a single moral
   aim, untroubled by the need to compromise with others."      - H.L.A. Hart