* Jeroen C. van Gelderen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000703 08:52] wrote: > Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > Sacrificing performance to fix the small occurances where > > this is not the case is not worth it, the general case will always > > be there and will be more important. > > You seem to imply that you have proof that Bosko's patches > will negatively affect the general case I assume? No I don't, I have a lot of faith in Bosko's work but I wanted to make it clear that performance is several orders of magnitude more important than being able to reclaim memory. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
- Re[2]: mbuf re-write(s), v 0.1 Joe McGuckin
- Re: Re[2]: mbuf re-write(s), v 0.1 Alfred Perlstein
- Re: Re[2]: mbuf re-write(s), v 0.1 Bosko Milekic
- Re: mbuf re-write(s), v 0.1 David Greenman
- Re: mbuf re-write(s), v 0.1 Bosko Milekic
- Re: mbuf re-write(s), v 0.1 Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: mbuf re-write(s), v 0.1 David Greenman
- Re: mbuf re-write(s), v 0.1 Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: mbuf re-write(s), v 0.1 Alfred Perlstein
- Re: mbuf re-write(s), v 0.1 Jeroen C. van Gelderen
- Re: mbuf re-write(s), v 0.1 Alfred Perlstein
- Re: mbuf re-write(s), v 0.1 Bosko Milekic
- Re: mbuf re-write(s), v 0.1 Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: mbuf re-write(s), v 0.1 Bosko Milekic
- Re: mbuf re-write(s), v 0.1 Bill Fumerola
- Re: mbuf re-write(s), v 0.1 Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: mbuf re-write(s), v 0.1 Bosko Milekic
- Re: mbuf re-write(s), v 0.1 Bosko Milekic
- Re: mbuf re-write(s), v 0.1 Matthew Dillon