On Fri, 27 Mar 1998 06:33:35 -0800 (PST) 
 Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU> wrote:

 > Where that come from?  Nobody is slagging Charles or anyone else.

Well, I disinctly remember that there was some beating up of Charles
when he was explaining some aspects of the new driver... but whatever.

 > I did say that FreeBSD pays more attention to low-level performance
 > than NetBSD does.  I happen to think that's true. It shows up in all
 > sorts of ways, like looking at the assembler output by gcc and
 > tweaking their source code to match; paying more attention to tuning
 > of critical code fragments like kernel bcopy() and copyin(), interrupt
 > dispatch code, and similar hackery.  NetBSD doesn't do that.  That's
 > much easier to do if you only have one CPU architecture to tune for.

I think that's a random assertion.  I know that some people have been
paying a LOT of attention to low level performance, in the places where
it matters.

 > But my earlier statements were not about `fast' vs `slow'
 > interrupts. (though `fast' definitely could make the netbsd com driver
 > faster yet.)  Even comparing `heavyweight' interrupt against
 > `heavyweight' interrupt, FreeBSD still does better.  That's orthogonal
 > to serial handling and to lightwegith interrupts . I do understand how
 > such a misunderstanding might arise in this context, though.

Show me the numbers.  If you're going to make those assertions, you're
going to show numbers.  Quite frankly, I'm getting tired of the perception
that FreeBSD is always "faster, better" in these types of things (low-level
interrupt latency, in this case) because "well, they must be, because they
are always optimizing for their one architecture!"

Show me the numbers, or keep your assertions to yourself.

 > Boggle. Charles claims an innocent statement of a fact (which flamed
 > nobody, Charles or otherwise) is a "slagging".  Yet at the same time,
 > Charles confirms the very same fact.  Is it me, or is that Kafka-eque?

It not a fact as far as I'm concerned unless you demonstrate it to be a
fact.  Misrepresenting something as a fact is slagging, in my book.

Jonathan: I'm going to address some of the other things you said in
private e-mail.  I am expecting that you will NOT then "accidentally"
CC that private mail to a mailing list (which you have done several
times in the past).

Quite frankly, I think you're being unprofessional, and I'm sick of it.

Jason R. Thorpe                                       thorpej@nas.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center                            Home: +1 408 866 1912
NAS: M/S 258-5                                       Work: +1 650 604 0935
Moffett Field, CA 94035                             Pager: +1 415 428 6939