From owner-freebsd-mobile Thu Dec 5 12:36:31 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF9F737B401 for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:36:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from ns.yogotech.com (ns.yogotech.com [206.127.123.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF92443EDA for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:36:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nate@yogotech.com) Received: from emerger.yogotech.com (emerger.yogotech.com [206.127.123.131]) by ns.yogotech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA08861; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 13:36:17 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate@yogotech.com) Received: (from nate@localhost) by emerger.yogotech.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) id gB5KaG4A010064; Thu, 5 Dec 2002 13:36:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from nate) From: Nate Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15855.47296.802699.36156@emerger.yogotech.com> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 13:36:16 -0700 To: "M. Warner Losh" Cc: nate@yogotech.com, fscked@pacbell.net, freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Trivial hack for pccardd(8) In-Reply-To: <20021205.132955.52623271.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <3DED9042.A7A6B6C3@pacbell.net> <20021205.101009.22498891.imp@bsdimp.com> <15855.40804.722314.647829@emerger.yogotech.com> <20021205.132955.52623271.imp@bsdimp.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams) Sender: owner-freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > : > What's wrong with pccardd_flags=-z? > : > : Any way that these could become the default flags in -stable? I asked > : before, but you said it was too close to a release (4.6R at the time). > > I don't think it would be a good idea to change this default in > -stable. If we did, would we get more complaints from people whose > boot time suddely was much larger? I think so. The extra 2-3 seconds increase in boot-time has happened *so* many times over the lifetime of 4.x branch that I doubt anyone would notice it for adding -z. My 486/66 running 2.1.5++ boots *way* faster than my 1.8Ghz P4 running 4.7-stable in the portions that FreeBSD is responsible for. :( Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-mobile" in the body of the message