From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST,HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20,HTML_MESSAGE, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 8292 invoked from network); 16 Jul 2021 14:41:48 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 16 Jul 2021 14:41:48 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 4450B9C822; Sat, 17 Jul 2021 00:41:46 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93FB99C7F1; Sat, 17 Jul 2021 00:41:26 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ccc.com header.i=@ccc.com header.b="R3eqgVrt"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 5CE3C9C7F1; Sat, 17 Jul 2021 00:41:24 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-qk1-f169.google.com (mail-qk1-f169.google.com [209.85.222.169]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D38419C7F0 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 2021 00:41:23 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-qk1-f169.google.com with SMTP id 77so8851528qkk.11 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 07:41:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ccc.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=kQiGCJ33n6Ga/QToyWJh+Ym8fRzfDp/hFwFAQmFLZ3Y=; b=R3eqgVrtquZRW88LSZ1IGdN36TgcZkhHFaWntcjpSEOW8sdCS0PlZxVPA2AqlpaZWc YgDojBAZOERjtSqQ+ys8bJdUxu3VmK2Ts8/U47mfc3cJtGfM7JqESS/sITUtY2f11wrM 9AoioX5yfx8PavuXGYqEf6VBZCpp4jV+3y5bk= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kQiGCJ33n6Ga/QToyWJh+Ym8fRzfDp/hFwFAQmFLZ3Y=; b=CakUQ7M+i3DkA3vXAB7hZ/YuZKQXI2lsOpDYKJffo5djKokXocFwNpWbMhBqjjgPlh 9Y1wZBWbfeyAEDU6YyMfaGZjAR1XsLhUyDaknW4wlzFaCfv09SERNklBGC+Tyhrgkhaa 9BUP+Fi2BKm0Aq7/nO7Lg/U3etpmwIi62iAtjBi2Pe5REIzyjyhm6f8N8cfSryiPiEAD zqG4o/9p8VZzD4+DqJD0KZicIPbyA1FVy2E3RWSmDrtZh5/DTgYD8R9RY6C4cXORUOwL 0kT3VRl3ufwlyw/2F0qfii8MKKJv66UlBXZ6w/SXz09Mr1Yk5f10MWj7Wv2J+QSTIcGf 1ltw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5312FSjThsVy5hMzs6dSqENoJ+YJKxAoJ7BWFSA1k0kBH2eAwdzN sb1FP0NsTrvwc8TEtQe0sA1iaSnOxva0kIEv2FhAHQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxfPNm4KA9w+YNWh73qJY+H9pbuo9g+eJZLcSi8mDUrGWuQNuEnGbGAz2UsETIPBGI8aufuuqaMuxZZz0pm/s0= X-Received: by 2002:a37:9306:: with SMTP id v6mr10222288qkd.476.1626446482789; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 07:41:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <213a4c11-3ab2-4b4a-8d6b-b52105a19711@localhost> <5777F7E6-062B-4C5A-9C98-36FFE6AC3414@stdio.com> <20210716135639.GI12733@mcvoy.com> In-Reply-To: <20210716135639.GI12733@mcvoy.com> From: Clem Cole Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 10:40:56 -0400 Message-ID: To: Larry McVoy Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000da6f2805c73e9437" Subject: Re: [TUHS] 386BSD released X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society , Bakul Shah Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --000000000000da6f2805c73e9437 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 9:57 AM Larry McVoy wrote: > I'm pretty sure SGI used a similar approach for networking packets. > Yeah, it was pretty standard for networking interfaces. I think I first saw it I'm the MIT Chaos driver maybe? In many ways, Gurwitz's whole mbuf memory scheme for the ethernet controllers and the whole IP stack that lives on in BSD is based on the idea. Rob used a number of different size buffers, not just the two, but the idea is the same, never copy anything if we can avoid it. Play pointer games in the top, bottom, and middle parts of the driver/stack. A huge difference, as Ted I'm sure knows, is that you tended to have many more serial lines than network interfaces. I suspect Rob's scheme would have sucked trying to support traditional single-byte serial interfaces or really just use too much memory to be practical. =E1=90=A7 --000000000000da6f2805c73e9437 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 9:57= AM Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> wr= ote:
I'm pre= tty sure SGI used a similar approach for networking packets.

Yeah, it was pretty standard for networking interfaces.= =C2=A0 I think I first saw it I'm the MIT Chaos driver maybe?=C2=A0 In = many ways,=C2=A0 Gurwitz's whole mbuf memory scheme for the ethernet co= ntrollers and the whole IP stack that lives on in BSD is based on the idea.= =C2=A0 Rob used a number of different size buffers, not just the two, but t= he idea is the same, never copy anything if we can avoid it.=C2=A0 =C2=A0Pl= ay pointer games in the top, bottom, and middle parts of the driver/stack.<= /div>

A huge difference, as Ted I'm sure knows, is that = you tended to have=C2=A0many more serial lines than network interfaces.=C2= =A0 I suspect Rob's scheme would=C2=A0have sucked trying to support tra= ditional single-byte serial interfaces or really just use too much memory t= o be practical.
3D""=E1=90=A7
--000000000000da6f2805c73e9437--