From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Sep 24 08:09:44 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id IAA21944
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 08:09:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from crh.cl.msu.edu (crh.cl.msu.edu [35.8.1.24])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA21913
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 08:09:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from henrich@localhost) by crh.cl.msu.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) id LAA00339 for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Tue, 24 Sep 1996 11:09:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Henrich <henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu>
Message-Id: <199609241509.LAA00339@crh.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Qcam driver?
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 11:09:29 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL22 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

So why is the kernel qcam driver so nasty on system performance?  everytime a
pic is snapped my system freezes, with xfqcam I can spin poll the lpt0 port and
get zero noticeable system impact..

-Crh

       Charles Henrich     Michigan State University     henrich@msu.edu

                         http://pilot.msu.edu/~henrich