On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Jarom=EDr Dolecek wrote:

> > There's a lot of code there.  I hope it'll stay optional (or end up
> > replacing even more code we've already got).
>
> Well, surely the new pipe implementation is "bigger" than the
> old (the old one does only little more than socketpair(2) call).
> It probably could stay optional, though the default should
> be the faster ones, of course.

Sounds good to me.  If the old implementation's that lightweight, it
shouldn't bit-rot too much (and I suspect the small-RAM ports will want to
use it).  Thanks.

--=20
Ben Harris                                                   <bjh21@netbsd.=
org>
Portmaster, NetBSD/arm26               <URL:http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/arm=
26/>