Re: any chance of 2.6.0-test*?

Val Henson
2003-01-13T21:53:11Z

On Sun, Jan 12, 2003 at 04:27:30PM -0500, Rob Wilkens wrote:
>
> I've only compiled (and haven't tested this code), but it should be much
> faster than the original code. Why? Because we're eliminating an extra
> "jump" in several places in the code every time open would be called.
> Yes, it's more code, so the kernel is a little bigger, but it should be
> faster at the same time, and memory should be less of an issue nowadays.

To the tune of "Teen Angst" from Cracker:

Cause, what the world needs now,
is another theoretical optimizer
like I need a hole in my head.

You'd think I'd be resigned to the l-k tradition of the unbenchmarked
"optimization" patch, but apparently not yet...

-VAL