From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun May  9 08:35:46 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 60C7E16A4DF; Sun,  9 May 2004 08:35:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.village.org [168.103.84.182])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 7DBAF43D48; Sun,  9 May 2004 08:35:44 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1])
	by harmony.village.org (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i47DjWOd021566;
	Fri, 7 May 2004 07:45:32 -0600 (MDT)
	(envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 07:46:16 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <20040507.074616.94036415.imp@bsdimp.com>
To: brad.knowles@skynet.be
From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
In-Reply-To: <p0600202dbcc0e2264360@[10.0.1.2]>
References: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040506225450.90990D-100000@fledge.watson.org>
	<p0600202dbcc0e2264360@[10.0.1.2]>
X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
cc: rwatson@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: 4.7 vs 5.2.1 SMP/UP bridging performance
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 15:35:46 -0000

In message: <p0600202dbcc0e2264360@[10.0.1.2]>
            Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be> writes:
: At 10:55 PM -0400 2004/05/06, Robert Watson wrote:
: 
: >  On occasion, I've had conversations with Peter Wemm about providing HAL
: >  modules with optimized versions of various common routines for specific
: >  hardware platforms.  However, that would require us to make a trade-off
: >  between the performance benefits of inlining and the performance benefits
: >  of a HAL module...
: 
: 	I'm confused.  Couldn't you just do this sort of stuff as 
: conditional macros, which would have both benefits?

That makes sharing biniares much harder...

Warner