I would be interested to know _how_ it can be a win. It may be that the
old code just used to initialize all of the skb head, and that the win is
from initializing less. But I'd like to know why, because right now it
looks like a loss to me.
I'll be happy to be proven wrong - less work for me. It's stable for me
now, and the kernel is better for it. 2.1.116 has a few patches that it
_shouldn't_ have had and that made it into the final release by mistake
(the page aging code shouldn't have been ifdeffed out), but it seems
stable, and that's what I really care about. As such, I can certainly let
it be, but I want to know why it would help.
For example, when LFS was done for BSD, and the LFS proponents claimed it
was faster than FFS, Kirk McCusik actually looked into it - and it wasn't
that LSF was really any faster, but that the old FFS had had a few silly
things going on in it. He fixed FFS, and the logbased filesystem was
relegated to where it belonged.
The point being that I want to know _why_.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html