Subject: Re: Splitting struct device and softc
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Bill Stouder-Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/23/2007 15:02:19
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 05:50:10PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 08:41:46AM -0700, Matt Thomas wrote:
> > Shouldn't devices be allocated from their own pool rather than be
> > malloced?
> Can we revisit this when the compat code is not needed any more? I guess
> the answer depends quite a bit on how large struct device is and
> therefore how big the overhead of malloc vs pool is. I also believe that
> it is certainly not performance critical, so space usage is more
> important here.
Also, what exactly is the initialization sequencing of pools and malloc? I=
know we want devices moderatly early in boot.
In other words, I agree with you, Joerg. :-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----