--at6+YcpfzWZg/htY
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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?
>=20
> 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=
=20
know we want devices moderatly early in boot.

In other words, I agree with you, Joerg. :-)

Take care,

Bill

--at6+YcpfzWZg/htY
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFG9uJqWz+3JHUci9cRAmL5AJ9IE79H8FMuWVfdlNrF1Z+1Wb4lsgCdF3XA
vyMVMIo7gHoBEjabQwO5Kk8=
=WuCk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--at6+YcpfzWZg/htY--