From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Sun,  8 Jun 2014 13:53:16 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <3ea064a183884366cd2f9af97bda63d1@brasstown.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAOw7k5iukdz2w7t9vS=72JzrUkqZsY1E27SYsj=LyFBSV3S0aw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <febeb72da75dd219fc0d15dbc8b6de89@ivey>
	<CAOw7k5hX=_QzB7dTrEeOOBWXfqQc=7TxFMaa2-L5NkrSzm0FqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<ff37984f5633539b4d7228d9234ded35@brasstown.quanstro.net>
	<CAOw7k5iukdz2w7t9vS=72JzrUkqZsY1E27SYsj=LyFBSV3S0aw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] duppage
Topicbox-Message-UUID: f88917c6-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Sun Jun  8 13:51:18 EDT 2014, charles.forsyth@gmail.com wrote:

> On 8 June 2014 18:34, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
>
> > well, those are the measurements.  do you think they are misleading?
> >  perhaps
> > with the pio happening in another context?  i haven't hunted this down.
> >
>
> the difference is only how fault makes the copy (easy or hard), there
> shouldn't be any call to pio either way.

unless the image is not cached, or doesn't have 1 reference.

- erik