From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Apr 15 19:01:49 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA28750
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 19:01:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from root.com (implode.root.com [198.145.90.17])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA28719;
          Tue, 15 Apr 1997 19:01:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by root.com (8.8.5/8.6.5) with SMTP id TAA23707; Tue, 15 Apr 1997 19:02:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199704160202.TAA23707@root.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: implode.root.com: localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol
To: Jaye Mathisen <mrcpu@cdsnet.net>
cc: dyson@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Doing the FreeBSD tightrope walk. 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 15 Apr 1997 18:25:18 PDT."
             <Pine.NEB.3.95.970415182314.23227N-100000@mail.cdsnet.net> 
From: David Greenman <dg@root.com>
Reply-To: dg@root.com
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 19:02:46 -0700
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>What is aggravating I guess is that I can swear that I've seen on this
>list statements to the effect of "Bounce buffers support doesn't hurt
>anything, so you might as well leave it in".
>
>Obviously false.

   The statement means only that bounce buffer support doesn't slow down I/O
on DMA controllers that don't need it, i.e. doesn't hurt performance. The
buffer pool is still allocated at system startup, however.

-DG

David Greenman
Core-team/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project