From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 15 12:28:54 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64C641065672; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 12:28:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jilles@stack.nl) Received: from mx1.stack.nl (relay02.stack.nl [IPv6:2001:610:1108:5010::104]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEF2A8FC14; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 12:28:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from snail.stack.nl (snail.stack.nl [IPv6:2001:610:1108:5010::131]) by mx1.stack.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DF4D35C1AD; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 13:28:52 +0100 (CET) Received: by snail.stack.nl (Postfix, from userid 1677) id 76BB128468; Sun, 15 Jan 2012 13:28:52 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 13:28:52 +0100 From: Jilles Tjoelker To: Eitan Adler Message-ID: <20120115122852.GA63181@stack.nl> References: <201201142246.q0EMkI6P052011@svn.freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r230118 - head/bin/sh X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 12:28:54 -0000 On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 12:58:02AM -0500, Eitan Adler wrote: > On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Jilles Tjoelker wrote: > > Author: jilles > > Date: Sat Jan 14 22:46:18 2012 > > New Revision: 230118 > > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/230118 > > > > Log: > >  sh: Change input buffer size from 1023 to 1024. > > > >  PR:           bin/161756 > On Wed Oct 19 22:33:38 UTC 2011 you said in the PR: > Although this change looks like an improvement, it does not seem > fully satisfying. I would like to see performance numbers for the > change on your slow embedded platform. Also, why use 1023 or 1024? > Another buffer size may be better. > But the PR does not seem to answer the question. Can you explain why > you decided to act on the PR now? Because the submitter did not want to run benchmarks for this, and it looked useful anyway. -- Jilles Tjoelker