Elad Efrat wrote:
> If we, again, look at the concerns, there is the code size issue and the
> performance issue.
>
> For the first, I already showed that it is very likely that the change
> will be around 10kb of change in the resulting kernel image; probably
> less. Given that NetBSD's kernel size keeps growing every year, I see
> no reason why this should even be a consideration in this case.
>
> As to performance, again, people who suspect a performance hit with the
> new code on their embedded/ancient/whatever hardware can just go ahead
> and test it. On my machines I haven't seen any performance hit, but then
> again maybe the users running i386/amd64 are not so common in the NetBSD
> world.
>
> I'd like to ask everyone that before they continue with their chaotic
> prophecies they first take the time to do the actual tests.
>   

I'd request at least one comparison with some RISC based processor,
MIPS, ARM, SPARC, whatever.  I don't think x86 is "typical", in this
case.  (I think this is important mostly because of possible impact to
embedded MIPS/ARM targets that are likely to be size sensitive.  For
most other RISC workstations, even 100k wouldn't make a difference.)

I'd offer to do it myself, I just haven't taken the time yet.  If no one
else gets to it first, I'll do some tests, but I can't promise a timeline.

    -- Garrett


-- 
Garrett D'Amore, Principal Software Engineer
Tadpole Computer / Computing Technologies Division,
General Dynamics C4 Systems
http://www.tadpolecomputer.com/
Phone: 951 325-2134  Fax: 951 325-2191