Christos Zoulas wrote:
> On Apr 14,  8:34am, jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) wrote:
> -- Subject: Re: speeding up bzero
> 
> It is time for the {ov,}b*() functions to bite the dust.

There is no ovbcopy() in kernel in -current anymore. Actually
even 1.6 kernel doesn't use it and doesn't contain it in systm.h

Jaromir
 
> christos
> 
> | In message <45D3A7FC-6E3F-11D7-9F28-000A957650EC@wasabisystems.com>,
> | Jason Thorpe  writes:
> | >
> | >On Saturday, April 12, 2003, at 06:56  AM, David Laight wrote:
> | 
> | >The kernel has always had "ovbcopy()" for overlapping bcopy.  So, I'd 
> | >think bcopy() should behave like memcpy(), i.e. not bother checking for 
> | >overlap.
> | 
> | This sounds like a bad idea: yes, the kernel has had ovbcopy(), but on
> | at least two of our ports, bcopy() has historically checked for
> | overlap and given userspace-bcopy() semantics.
> | 
> | Why change it (potentially introducing breakage) if it ain't broken,
> | and if we're meant to be using memcpy()/memmove() anyway?
> -- End of excerpt from Jonathan Stone
> 


-- 
Jaromir Dolecek <jdolecek@NetBSD.org>            http://www.NetBSD.org/
-=- We should be mindful of the potential goal, but as the tantric    -=-
-=- Buddhist masters say, ``You may notice during meditation that you -=-
-=- sometimes levitate or glow.   Do not let this distract you.''     -=-