Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:40:43 -0800 (PST) From: Sean Eric Fagan <sef@kithrup.com> To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern vfs_aio.c Message-ID: <199712022240.OAA07724@kithrup.com> In-Reply-To: <199712022131.NAA00912.kithrup.freebsd.current@kithrup.com> References: Your message of "Tue, 02 Dec 1997 10:34:13 PST." <199712021834.KAA06151@kithrup.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <199712022131.NAA00912.kithrup.freebsd.current@kithrup.com> you write: Well, I wrote. And I've said what I expect to be the last on it -- I don't really have a problem with the changes as an experiment, or Poul-Henning (even though it may sound like that, and I *do* apologise for it if so -- I don't hold anything against you personally). I do think they were not very good changes, however, for a lot of reasons. If it didn't impact on the API and proc structure, I wouldn't care -- and a 0.01% performance gain in that situation is a reasonable accomplishment. But these changes did affect the API, and the proc structure, and those are both things that should not be done lightly -- and I think, in this case, it was done too lightly; if the gains had been higher (on the order of 1%, perhaps), I'd've said "go for it." But that was not the case. Anyway, hopefully, everyone's said their piece about it, and I won't have anything else to say about it now :).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199712022240.OAA07724>