From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 20 01:11:32 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62DA816A4CE; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 01:11:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from web.portaone.com (support.portaone.com [195.70.151.35]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EE9E43D49; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 01:11:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sobomax@portaone.com) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (xDSL-2-2.united.net.ua [193.111.9.226]) (authenticated bits=0) by web.portaone.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i9K1BES6026310 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 20 Oct 2004 03:11:17 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from sobomax@portaone.com) Message-ID: <4175BB27.2010406@portaone.com> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 04:11:03 +0300 From: Maxim Sobolev Organization: Porta Software Ltd User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Julian Elischer References: <20041019071102.GA49717@FreeBSD.org> <20041019072349.GA28133@samodelkin.net> <20041019073145.GA29746@thingy.tbd.co.nz> <20041019.084324.106215221.imp@bsdimp.com> <4175B0CD.1050204@portaone.com> <4175B591.4090407@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <4175B591.4090407@elischer.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:55:09 +0000 cc: danfe@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: ru@FreeBSD.org cc: obrien@FreeBSD.org cc: andy@fud.org.nz cc: "M. Warner Losh" cc: fjoe@samodelkin.net Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libc/i386/net htonl.S ntohl.S X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 01:11:32 -0000 Julian Elischer wrote: > > > Maxim Sobolev wrote: > >> M. Warner Losh wrote: >> >>> In message: <20041019073145.GA29746@thingy.tbd.co.nz> >>> Andrew Thompson writes: >>> : > I am afraid that recompiling a kernel on i386 will require >>> several days. >>> : : Chicken and the egg. To support i386 it must be recompiled, so >>> you would >>> : have to do it on another box anyway. >>> >>> The only people that will seriously want to use i386 these days are >>> the folks that build embedded systems. Those you have to build on >>> some host then deploy to the target system. >>> >>> There are some benefits to having i386 in the tree. However, there >>> are also a number of different places in the tree where things are >>> sub-optimal because we still have support for i386 in there. The >>> desire to remove them is to make FreeBSD go faster on more modern >>> hardware. >> >> >> >> Can anyone give at least one valid point why somebody will want to use >> 6.x on embedded i386? Such hardware is inheretedly limited, so that >> all good stuff that have been added into FreeBSD during the past few >> years > > > >> (SMPng, GEOM, KSE, you-name-it) is > > > SMP is the only one of these for which you are correct.. > > KSE and geom couldn't care about 486 or 386.. > I think 386 machines are not going to be SMP. > I would be happy to see SMP completely incompatible with 386 > (I mean you don't need atomic operations at all on a UP system, so > any such instructions can be ignored in that case.) Neither of those technologies is really necessary in such applications to be able to justify an additional 4.x vs. 5.x performance/memory consumption penalty which will be quite considerable for low-performance, low-memory embedded device, which is my point. > doesn't mean we shouldn't rip it out.. just pointing out that in fact > there is a "middle position" > where we continue to support Uniprocessor 386.. > >> of no use on that hardware anyway. IMO any reasonable embedded folks >> would just stick > > >> with 4.x or even 3.x due to their smaller footprint and better >> performance on old systems. > > > > I'd like to see a 4.x with threads :-) > hmm maybe dragonfly..... You have 5.x for that. -Maxim > > >> >> >> Let's just rip that old junk off! >> >> -Maxim > > > > >