sysctl question

[Roman Divacky]

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 03:21:17PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 January 2009 2:33:18 pm Roman Divacky wrote:
> > hi
> > 
> > we dont need Giant to be held for sysctl_ctx_init/SYSCTL_ADD_*, right?
> 
> Ugh, it looks like the sysctl tree locking is woefully inadequate, so we 
> aren't quite ready for this yet.

what do you mean? should all sysctl_ctx_init/SYSCTL_ADD_* consumers lock
Giant? I didnt not find a single one (except the scsi stuff) that locks
it...

can you explain? thnx

roman