From owner-freebsd-current Tue Dec 2 14:40:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA11052 for current-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:40:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current) Received: from kithrup.com (kithrup.com [205.179.156.40]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA11045 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:40:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sef@kithrup.com) Received: (from sef@localhost) by kithrup.com (8.8.8/8.8.7) id OAA07724; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:40:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sef) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:40:43 -0800 (PST) From: Sean Eric Fagan Message-Id: <199712022240.OAA07724@kithrup.com> To: current@FreeBSD.ORG Reply-To: sef@kithrup.com Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern vfs_aio.c 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> Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd. Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk 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 :).