On Tue, Oct 16, 2001 at 11:06:53AM +0000, Adam Olsen wrote: > I can't > think of any reason that we'd want segments larger than the smallest > value we can manage.
Simplicity. The smallest value we can handle is a bit, and this is the bitmap we have already. However, instead searching for bits that have to be modified, we are simply copying everything right now. I like the idea of only copying 256 bytes instead 8192, but I don't like any more sophisticated segmentation, because this means that one has the overhead of another real bitmap, that needs to be allocated, free'd and maintained. The segment map should fit into a single basic type, like an uint32_t, everything else is overkill IMO. Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
