Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:35:59 -0500 From: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> To: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Call for testers: FPU changes Message-ID: <4CE59C3F.8020704@sentex.net> In-Reply-To: <20101117163541.GR2392@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <20101115211350.GE2392@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <4CE1FDBA.9030403@sentex.net> <20101116094330.GH2392@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <4CE300DE.8010304@sentex.net> <20101116221926.GN2392@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <4CE333EF.10406@sentex.net> <20101117163541.GR2392@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/17/2010 11:35 AM, Kostik Belousov wrote: > > Meantime, the similar change may be beneficial for padlock(4) too. > f you are going to test it, please note that most likely, openssl padlock > engine does not use padlock(4), I do not know for sure. I did some more tests since someone said they had problems with geli, ipsec and padlock. In the simple tests I did, I didnt find any regressions or speed differences. Info appended to http://www.tancsa.com/fpu.html I also compared to stock RELENG_8 and padlock and didnt find any issues. ---Mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4CE59C3F.8020704>