On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Ken Wellsch wrote:

> > > What if he took a GENERIC from 1.2 or 1.3, custom stripped it down, then
> > > carried it forward?  I don't think a whole lot has changed, but I may be
> > > out to lunch.
> >
> >         A whole bunch - the syntax for specifying filesystems, probably
> >         some device names, options added/removed...
>
> Sure in a full blown GENERIC kernel.  But I'm talking about a kernel config
> that just matches his hardware, no more.  If related device names have
> changed,
> I'll grant you that.
>
	OK. Taking a few minutes to look through the file:

	    Changes after 1.2
	    - filesystems are now introduced with 'file-system' rather
	      than options
	    - ra devices attach to mscpbus rather than directly to uda
	    - tapes now attach to mscpbus on mtc, not tms on tmscp
	    - the 'config' line is completely different.
	    Changes after 1.3
	    - backplane0 has been replaced by mainbus0, which affects every
	      bus attach line
	    - microvaxes now have an 'ibus', to which uba0 is attached

	I may have missed some.

> Is not the point to use a common denominator by which to judge size changes
> and performance?  Leaving in differing options is not likely to be very
> effective comparison I think.

	I agree we should benchmark a GENERIC kernel and one specifically
	customised for the hardware and with the same set of filesystems/
	devices/network options as in the previous release.

                David/absolute
			       -- www.netbsd.org: A pmap for every occasion --