From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Dec 6 6:42:47 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from prism.flugsvamp.com (66-188-92-95.mad.wi.charter.com [66.188.92.95]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0F4637B41C for ; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 06:42:38 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jlemon@localhost) by prism.flugsvamp.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id fB6Efw650278; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 08:41:58 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from jlemon) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 08:41:58 -0600 (CST) From: Jonathan Lemon Message-Id: <200112061441.fB6Efw650278@prism.flugsvamp.com> To: tlambert2@mindspring.com, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Can TCP changes be put in RELENG_4? X-Newsgroups: local.mail.freebsd-hackers In-Reply-To: References: Organization: Cc: Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In article you write: >Really, it boils down to the allocation systems needing rewrite, >and (painful as this is to say) a move away from type stable >memory, to permit reuse, rather than static purposing of large >blocks: static purposing is the primary reason a general turning >can not be near optimal for a lot of applications. Okay, this I can agree with. But I don't have the time or inclination to write a new memory allocator. Did you have something in mind? -- Jonathan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message