* Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020223 16:41] wrote: > > : > :* Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020223 14:43] wrote: > :> This is approximately what I am thinking. Note that this gives us the > :> flexibility to create a larger infrastructure around the bucket cache, > :> such as implement per-cpu caches and so on and so forth. What I have > :> here is the minimal implementation. > : > :I strongly object to this implementation right now, please do not > :commit it. I already explained to you how to make the problem > :go away but instead you insist on some complex api that pins > :memory down like the damn zone allocator. It's not needed, so > :please don't do it. > : > :-Alfred > > Woa! Timeout! I'm not planning on comitting any sort of malloc thingy. > That was a 10 second thought experiment.
Usually when I see diff(1) output from you I usually expect a commit within the next half hour or so, I just wanted to make myself clear on the issue. No worries. :) Yes, and hopefully JeffR's allocator will fix our problems, that is if it ever makes it out of p4. :) -- -Alfred Perlstein [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' Tax deductible donations for FreeBSD: http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message