Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 00:07:00 -0800 From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> To: Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@freebsd.org> Cc: Pierre-Luc Drouin <pldrouin@pldrouin.net>, acpi@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance problem since updating from 6.0-RELEASE to 6.0-STABLE last friday Message-ID: <438574A4.80001@root.org> In-Reply-To: <ygeveyk2ga4.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> References: <4377775B.3080606@pldrouin.net> <20051114105854.GA1041@galgenberg.net> <4378CC14.2020109@pldrouin.net> <ygek6f9g83g.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> <437A3901.8010001@pldrouin.net> <437A3B96.4040300@root.org> <437B42C0.9040605@pldrouin.net> <437CAEB0.9060202@pldrouin.net> <yge7jb0x28z.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> <43837A34.1030900@root.org> <ygeveyk2ga4.wl%ume@mahoroba.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote: >>>>>>On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:06:12 -0800 >>>>>>Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> said: > > > nate> Thank you for tracking this down. It is interesting that BIF is > nate> heavyweight while BST is not. I guess that is expected behavior by OEMs > nate> which only test on Windows and so not everyone makes BIF simple. On my > nate> laptops, BIF is as fast as BST. > > You are welcome. My laptops are also fast enough for BIF. I > remembered that iwasaki-san grouched at the heavyweight of BIF when he > was writing cmbat support. > > nate> I don't like the patch approach (changing the API), however. Let me > nate> look at it and commit a fix that doesn't change the API. > > Yes, I didn't feel satisfaction with my patch, too. So, I anticipated > that you say so. :-) My patch has been committed, tested, and MFCd. Thank you for your debugging help, Umemoto-san. -- Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?438574A4.80001>