On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <20040707091311.GE12877_at_cicely12.cicely.de>, Bernd Walter writes: > >On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 04:32:28PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > > >What about those options: > >- limit the allocated memory to the user request so we don't take the > > whole 128k if not reuired. > >- Do interleaving with 2 or more xfers if the read request is known to > > take more xfers. > > I would consider ugen to be a primary candidate to use physio like > I belive scsi-tape drives do ? I believe that is a good candidate. I considerred this as an option but I haven't looked to see how compaitble NetBSD physio still is with our diverged physio. FOr reasns of future co-operation, I'd like to keep diffs to a minimum. As it is out USB code is VERY close to NetBSD except for umass.c which is qiite different. > > -- > Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 > phk_at_FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 > FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe > Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. >Received on Wed Jul 07 2004 - 16:27:26 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:00 UTC