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

[Izumi Tsutsui <tsutsui%ceres.dti.ne.jp@localhost>]

joerg@ wrote:

> > 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.

loadfile() takes "flags" args. They are specified in MD sources.

> > > 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.

Your patch completely replace current implementation and
in such case it affects all ports.  Who have tested them?

> > > 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.

Again, ask persons who committed the changes, or consult Core.
IIRC there was no seek at least on 4.x days.

---
Izumi Tsutsui