On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 01:18:49AM +0000, Jed Davis wrote:
> > I think we can just use
> > a callback-based mechanism (much like xm_shm does) around pool_put().
> > Would be nice if pool(9) already had support for this :)
> 
> I suppose one might argue that pool(9) in fact does, and it's called
> ltsleep(9).  But that one isn't me; and anyway, the amount of state that
> actually needs saving here is rather less than a whole thread context.
> (Which is not to say that state-machine-ifying all this won't be mildly
> annoying.)
> 
> Oh, speaking of state: is there any reason why the array of machine
> addresses for an I/O needs to be kept around until xen_shm_unmap time?
> The xen_shm subsystem does keep its own record of that, after all.

You're right, I don't think it's needed. 

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer@antioche.eu.org>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--