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

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

The following reply was made to PR bin/50638; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Izumi Tsutsui <tsutsui%ceres.dti.ne.jp@localhost>
To: joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost
Cc: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost, gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost, netbsd-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost,
        tsutsui%ceres.dti.ne.jp@localhost
Subject: Re: PR/50638 CVS commit: src/sys/lib/libsa
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:58:14 +0900

 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