Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:59:09 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Dennis <dennis@etinc.com> Cc: Jeremiah Gowdy <jgowdy@home.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SMP in 2.4 (fwd) Message-ID: <20010419185909.K976@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010419154734.040c4ce0@mail.etinc.com>; from dennis@etinc.com on Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 03:57:17PM -0400 References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010418190439.03633920@mail.etinc.com> <5.0.2.1.0.20010419114632.03cacdd0@mail.etinc.com> <007f01c0c8f7$0d2e7680$015778d8@sherline.net> <5.0.2.1.0.20010419154734.040c4ce0@mail.etinc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Dennis <dennis@etinc.com> [010419 13:36] wrote: > At 01:34 PM 04/19/2001, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote: > > > > > Your point is moot, as you already have SMP support. The question is > > > whether squeezing a few extra cycles out (SMPng) is worth making the OS > > > significantly more complex, particularly when more computing power is > > > always on the way. > > > >Much of the code is being simplified and cleaned up. And it's not a "few > >extra cycles". > > > I do admit im in a vacuum here, as I havent seen any 5.0 code. Im assuming > it will be as ugly and problemattic as linux (which was unfortunately how > this thread got started, but some linux moron crossposting)...and thats not > fair as there are much better programmers in FBSD's camp than linux's. If > its done relatively transparently, then its a big win. If it makes all of > the drivers a new learning experience, then its not. Look spanky, just take a look at the wi driver ok? There, was that all too difficult? -- -Alfred Perlstein - [alfred@freebsd.org] http://www.egr.unlv.edu/~slumos/on-netbsd.html To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010419185909.K976>