>From: "Charles M. Hannum" <mycroft@NetBSD.ORG>
>Message-Id: <199603150034.TAA10386@pain.lcs.mit.edu>
>To: jonathan@Bowl.DSG.Stanford.EDU
>Subject: Re: i386 uses slow clock routine with options NTP and options HZ=100
>Cc: netbsd-bugs@NetBSD.ORG
>
>
>I'm more inclined to *not* define HZ, and figure out log2(hz) at run
>time.  Given the small actual number of shifts, I firmly disagree that
>this would be a noticable performance penalty.


I find it somewhat strange that Charles is taking this position, when
the i386 port currently has such a strong coupling from a compile-time
definition of HZ (or rather, non-definition of HZ, in the preferred case)
and the version of microtime() that gets compiled into the kernel.

Charles,  I find your position on these issues is not internally
consistent.  It's a failing of mine,  but I tend to ignore
internally-inconsistent arguments.

--Jonathan