I said:
> I am guessing that little of the above will be MFC'd into 4.0.  So the issue
> of the current SMP patch set should be based on its merits alone.  I would
> agree that they in themselves are worthy of MFCing.  Lets just not kid 

Mike Smith replied:
> Steve Passe actually argued quite eloquently against his own decision; 
> the "real work" that actually depends heavily on this foundation is 
> almost certainly never going to come back to the 4.x branch.  Since these 
> changes don't actually bring any real improvements in and of themselves, 
> there's little point in merging them for their own sake.

I based my opinion on the belief that they did indeed bring in a performance
benefit (I think I remember the value of 7% being tossed around).  I took 
those numbers on face value, if correct I stand by my "decision".  I didn't 
run any
tests with code pre-Matts-changes, so I can't confirm or deny them.

My "decision" is also based purely on the technical merits of the exercise, I
have to admit I never thought much about the issues of stable ABI.  Coming 
where I do, I readily admit I am a poor judge of this issue...

For my post-Matts-changes tests check out:


Steve Passe     | powered by 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]     |            Symmetric MultiProcessor FreeBSD

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to