On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 12:49:00PM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> In article <061104203953.M0114017@mirage.ceres.dti.ne.jp>
> I wrote:
> 
> > Then, what is the best way to workaround this
> > (nasty but likely ;-p) hardware bug?
> 
> Both patches (padding mbuf, or padding by zero'ed dmamem) are attached.

I find the second better. There shouldn't be much differences in performances,
but avoiding a mbuf allocation if possible is always better :)

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer@antioche.eu.org>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--