Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:29:43 -0700 From: Kevin Oberman <kob6558@gmail.com> To: Ian Lepore <freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org> Cc: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CURRENT as gateway on not-so-fast hardware: where is a bottlneck? Message-ID: <CAN6yY1vxsjxtuzo3m6QAvrr1x2yjS=ezB_3z1YzWiNbSnScJSQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1345223506.27688.116.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> References: <157941699.20120815004542@serebryakov.spb.ru> <CAJ-Vmon86-FPs4%2BXXkQXAow1jW465pMM2Sj7ZHi_0_E9VYSFSA@mail.gmail.com> <502AE8B5.9090106@FreeBSD.org> <502B775D.7000101@FreeBSD.org> <1849591745.20120815144006@serebryakov.spb.ru> <1345139226.27688.48.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <174138639.20120817143840@serebryakov.spb.ru> <1345215393.27688.85.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <CAJ-VmombFoUP1Saxd7y7Pzz2QrLX%2BgiQh9VgF5Pj68UOKDiXxg@mail.gmail.com> <1345223506.27688.116.camel@revolution.hippie.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Ian Lepore <freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org> wrote: > On Fri, 2012-08-17 at 09:58 -0700, Adrian Chadd wrote: >> On 17 August 2012 07:56, Ian Lepore <freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org> wrote: >> >> > That result actually matches my expectation... it fixed only a part of >> > your problem. I suspected (without very good evidence) that you may >> > have two unrelated problems; hopefully now that we've eliminated one the >> > other will be easier to find. >> > >> > I've submitted a PR with that patch attached, since it has now been >> > shown to fix a problem on two different sets of (similar) hardware: >> > >> > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=170705 >> >> Hm, who's a good person to review this stuff? Maybe bde? >> > > No! Not bde! He'll notice that I violated style(9) by accidentally > leaving an extra blank line between a comment block and the function > definition. :) (There are probably more violations than that -- I did > this when I was first trying to come to grips with the differences > between style(9) and the almost-style(9) standards we use at work.) > > When I first proposed the changes, jhb remarked that they sounded good, > but as far as I know, nobody reviewed the actual diff when I posted it. > It looks like bde and phk were the primary maintainers back when this > code was being more actively worked on. Why not bde? Everyone needs to learn what the term "bruceification" means. Believe me, there IS good reason for programming style and almost everyone with a commit bit gets close. bde will provide a reminder of any of those things you forgot were in style(9). This is something we should appreciate, even if it does sting a bit. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer E-mail: kob6558@gmail.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAN6yY1vxsjxtuzo3m6QAvrr1x2yjS=ezB_3z1YzWiNbSnScJSQ>