Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:29:23 +0900 From: Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@freebsd.org> To: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> Cc: acpi@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance problem since updating from 6.0-RELEASE to 6.0-STABLE last friday Message-ID: <ygeveyk2ga4.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> In-Reply-To: <43837A34.1030900@root.org> References: <4377775B.3080606@pldrouin.net> <20051114105854.GA1041@galgenberg.net> <4378CC14.2020109@pldrouin.net> <ygek6f9g83g.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> <437A3901.8010001@pldrouin.net> <437A3B96.4040300@root.org> <437B42C0.9040605@pldrouin.net> <437CAEB0.9060202@pldrouin.net> <yge7jb0x28z.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> <43837A34.1030900@root.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,
>>>>> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:06:12 -0800
>>>>> Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> said:
nate> Thank you for tracking this down. It is interesting that BIF is
nate> heavyweight while BST is not. I guess that is expected behavior by OEMs
nate> which only test on Windows and so not everyone makes BIF simple. On my
nate> laptops, BIF is as fast as BST.
You are welcome. My laptops are also fast enough for BIF. I
remembered that iwasaki-san grouched at the heavyweight of BIF when he
was writing cmbat support.
nate> I don't like the patch approach (changing the API), however. Let me
nate> look at it and commit a fix that doesn't change the API.
Yes, I didn't feel satisfaction with my patch, too. So, I anticipated
that you say so. :-)
Sincerely,
--
Hajimu UMEMOTO @ Internet Mutual Aid Society Yokohama, Japan
ume@mahoroba.org ume@{,jp.}FreeBSD.org
http://www.imasy.org/~ume/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ygeveyk2ga4.wl%ume>