Change Details

Add explicit SI_SUB_EPOCH, after SI_SUB_TASKQ and before SI_SUB_SMP (EARLY_AP_STARTUP). Rename existing "SI_SUB_TASKQ + 1" to SI_SUB_EPOCH. epoch(9) consumers cannot epoch_alloc() before SI_SUB_EPOCH:SI_ORDER_SECOND, but likely should allocate before SI_SUB_SMP. Prior to this change, consumers (well, epoch itself, and net/if.c) just open-coded the SI_SUB_TASKQ + 1 order to match epoch.c, but this is fragile. https://reviews.freebsd.org/D22503

Add explicit SI_SUB_EPOCH, after SI_SUB_TASKQ and before SI_SUB_SMP (EARLY_AP_STARTUP). Rename existing "SI_SUB_TASKQ + 1" to SI_SUB_EPOCH. epoch(9) consumers cannot epoch_alloc() before SI_SUB_EPOCH:SI_ORDER_SECOND, but likely should allocate before SI_SUB_SMP. Prior to this change, consumers (well, epoch itself, and net/if.c) just open-coded the SI_SUB_TASKQ + 1 order to match epoch.c, but this is fragile.

Add explicit SI_SUB_EPOCH, after SI_SUB_TASKQ and before SI_SUB_SMP (EARLY_AP_STARTUP). Rename existing "SI_SUB_TASKQ + 1" to SI_SUB_EPOCH. epoch(9) consumers cannot epoch_alloc() before SI_SUB_EPOCH:SI_ORDER_SECOND, but likely should allocate before SI_SUB_SMP. Prior to this change, consumers (well, epoch itself, and net/if.c) just open-coded the SI_SUB_TASKQ + 1 order to match epoch.c, but this is fragile. https://reviews.freebsd.org/D22503