Subject: Re: amd64 stable for production ?
To: None <netbsd-users@NetBSD.org>
From: Quentin Garnier <cube@cubidou.net>
List: netbsd-users
Date: 12/12/2006 22:30:10
--k+G3HLlWI7eRTl+h
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 12:20:45PM -0800, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2006, at 11:58 AM, Christos Zoulas wrote:
[...]
> >>Counterexamples include Message-id =20
> >><274190120612100706jf397d37vcb1cd027024d9c5c@mail.gmail.com> which =20
> >>states: "I'd be interested in seeing numbers for the syscall =20
> >>latency, too."
> >>
> >>The latency of system calls involves a transition to kernel code =20
> >>by definition.
> >>Would you retract your claim, please?
> >
> >This is not my message, I don't have a gmail account.
>=20
> I didn't say it was your message; it was a message from someone else, =20

FWIW, the said sentence did _not_ came from a gmail account.  Unless
mutt is lying to me.  If it is the case, it's one hell of a liar.

--=20
Quentin Garnier - cube@cubidou.net - cube@NetBSD.org
"You could have made it, spitting out benchmarks
Owe it to yourself not to fail"
Amplifico, Spitting Out Benchmarks, Hometakes Vol. 2, 2005.

--k+G3HLlWI7eRTl+h
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (NetBSD)

iQEVAwUBRX8fYtgoQloHrPnoAQJc3gf7Bo+cmPU2U65tqVDWRlTdfODEtVn4wmC/
fBTbNJ2KIAXJjCvvENPfgXE6gbKWExwRw2ep5dv+wNQkl09A+JFS87EOQjOIBZdw
a4FmYp7GHsHj7qrFD0X23+2pp5dSkXexWgNenbKuY7J8NViG4e/+AQpuet898XtS
S7wAj4WE3l9kSmOinWvQRsiirEHbOMRaWe9QmLB7kHYFfxeUK2X1NOSYOnC7YZRO
8Q0HdJBm+7TY42aPWiAxkq0cLmobKO+dwDEnorQ4b7Rbrk+wxDtwH3BjzQd/XSgc
5Dv7ijco97+QnPz3gIbnAbjt4JxbkDI3tQo5a0+RjFqGM13LZjeH9w==
=e31Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--k+G3HLlWI7eRTl+h--