El sáb, 27-08-2005 a las 19:52 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG escribió: > Sergio Lopez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Oh, ok. Could you please help me to ask _all the things involved_ by > > this... > > Sorry, this is now in realm of just the same generic "tell me > everything!" question. > > As for Mach, no, I don't have time to answer whatever unasked > questions someone might implicate in Mach. I see L4 as the future, > and don't see a great deal value in spending my energy on Mach. >
Ok, that's what I need to know. > Distressing is that you ignored the following: > > > I see no question here. As for the change suggested, I would want to > > see some research on how this patch performs in practice. > > See, when I wrote that, I was assuming you would read it, rather than > just use it as a way to criticize me. READ IT. > On my stress test (continuosly building glibc in a loop), that patch keeps the number of ext2fs's threads around 200, which is a pretty sane number. No "zalloc's panic" nor any other error were noticed. Perhaps someone else with a little of spare time and some interest in Hurd can also test it. Thanks. -- Sergio Lopez [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
