From owner-freebsd-net Fri May 1 13:43:55 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id NAA18718 for freebsd-net-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 13:43:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu [18.24.4.193]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA18678 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 13:43:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu) Received: (from wollman@localhost) by khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA09515; Fri, 1 May 1998 16:43:38 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from wollman) Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 16:43:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Garrett Wollman Message-Id: <199805012043.QAA09515@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> To: Mike Smith Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Fwd: NetBSD network code improvements In-Reply-To: <199805011935.MAA00654@dingo.cdrom.com> References: <19980501205833.A655@fasterix.frmug.fr.net> <199805011935.MAA00654@dingo.cdrom.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org < said: > I'm not sure that making it optional would be taking best advantage of > it. If it's a standard performance-enhancing feature, we'd be best off > adopting it as such, in line with our out-of-the-box philosophy, no? The code which will give the best performance on a router is not necessarily the code which will give the best performance on a host. Ergo, we should optimize for the common case. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same wollman@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message