Re: PR/50638 CVS commit: src/sys/lib/libsa

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>]

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:13:04AM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> joerg@ wrote:
> 
> > He agreed before the fourth option was available or any hard numbers.
> > CRC values are checked if the file is read completely.
> 
> On several ports, whole file is not read.
> That's enough reason to disable it by MD options.

Again, whether it is read completely or not depends on a variety of
factors, many of them are more accidental than not.

> > I find your attitude to be quite annoying. There is an implementation,
> > it is tested and it is even measured. You ignored all that.
> 
> No diffs which can be committed as is.
> You always ignore actual work to be done
> on real software development.

Oh right, I missed that I posted a working diff to cread.c. I guess
Martin missed it too, when he used it in his benchmarks.

> > You still haven't answered my question of why seeking is beneficals. You
> > pushed your own hack through, completely ignoring the analysis.
> 
> You should ask DTRACE (or other) persons who introdueced the changes
> into MI libsa loadfile(), not me. There are PRs for it but no answer.
> 
> I won't block such generic MI improvements just to avoid slowness
> on poor Tier-II ports.

Stop with your silly tier II conspiricy. The simply problem is that
noone on x86 will care about reading a few extra KB from hard disk and
it is potentially even harmful when booting from a real CD. So whether
seeking ever provides an improvement matters most on those slow and
somewhat memory constrained systemed systems where the current
decompression (mis)handling also hurts the most. As such the question is
perfectly well aimed at tier II port users.

Joerg