Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 20:45:17 +0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> To: dima@best.net Cc: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans), committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FD_SETSIZE Message-ID: <199806051245.UAA01286@spinner.netplex.com.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 04 Jun 1998 17:02:49 MST." <199806050002.RAA15067@burka.rdy.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dima Ruban wrote:
> Bruce Evans writes:
> > >If I recall correctly, the -current select() implementation was enhanced t
o
> > >make better use of memory and copyin/out with large vector sizes. This ha
s
> > >not happened with -stable, so increasing the vector size might not be an
> > >idea as it could have a [slight?] detrimental effect. I don't remember
> > >the details of the situation well enough but I am pretty sure that there
> > >was some reason why it wasn't taken across.
> >
> > I didn't merge the kernel changes because they wouldn't have fixed a bug.
>
> Which one bug? Bug in select()?
There was no "bug", it was an improvement. That's one of the theoretical
guidelines for what goes into -stable.... bugfixes go in, new features and
enhancements do not. Well, that's the theory anyway, it's not followed
too carefully as a lot of new features have gone in including some that
probably shouldn't have.
> > Bruce
> >
>
> -- dima
>
Cheers,
-Peter
--
Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> Netplex Consulting
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199806051245.UAA01286>