From owner-freebsd-net Fri May 1 14:06:42 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA22414 for freebsd-net-outgoing; Fri, 1 May 1998 14:06:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (dingo.cdrom.com [204.216.28.145]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA22400 for ; Fri, 1 May 1998 14:06:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dingo.cdrom.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA00757; Fri, 1 May 1998 13:01:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805012001.NAA00757@dingo.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: Garrett Wollman cc: Mike Smith , freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Fwd: NetBSD network code improvements In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 01 May 1998 16:59:28 EDT." <199805012059.QAA09644@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 13:01:52 -0700 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > < said: > > > Given that there is no "common case", but rather a set of cases > > weighted by "commonness" > > We're talking 95% to 5% here... if not more. There aren't enough numbers there. Do you know how much the new code "hurts"? I certainly haven't seen any figures yet; it seems to me to be rather prejudicial to bias too far one way or the other just yet. My point was simply that in the spirit of anti-bloat, we need to consider anti-complex too. -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message