From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 25 16:01:45 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F177A16A4CE for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:01:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5B5743FCB for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:01:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id hAQ01gC7068452 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2003 19:01:43 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200311252248.hAPMmKeI081878@apollo.backplane.com> References: <20031125025621.453732A8FC@canning.wemm.org> <200311250311.hAP3BTCO075916@apollo.backplane.com> <20031125150700.GA48007@madman.celabo.org> <20031125201421.GB54467@madman.celabo.org> <20031125205009.GA38563@xor.obsecurity.org> <20031125221711.GA39438@xor.obsecurity.org> <200311252248.hAPMmKeI081878@apollo.backplane.com> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:23:19 +0100 To: FreeBSD-CURRENT Mailing List From: Brad Knowles Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: Re: 40% slowdown with dynamic /bin/sh X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 00:01:46 -0000 At 2:48 PM -0800 2003/11/25, Matthew Dillon wrote: > What I am advocating is that FreeBSD-5 not marginalize and > restrict (make less flexible) basic infrastructure in order to get other > infrastructure working. If you've got working, debugged code that works in the manner you are espousing, and still achieves the same goal of making NSS and PAM work everywhere, I'm sure we'd all love to see it. In the absence of any code contribution to the contrary, I see no alternative than the method that has been selected. Sure, it's not great. Sure, it's slower (more or less, depending on which benchmarks you believe). But it is the best implementation that was available, and this is -CURRENT, where things are expected to periodically be in a state of flux while major changes are underway. -- Brad Knowles, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)