From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 28 May 2001 12:22:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 28 May 2001 12:22:48 -0400 Received: from router-100M.swansea.linux.org.uk ([194.168.151.17]:6931 "EHLO the-village.bc.nu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 28 May 2001 12:22:38 -0400 Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.5-ac2 To: tim.leeuwvander@nl.unisys.com (Leeuw van der, Tim) Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 17:20:27 +0100 (BST) Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org ('linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org') In-Reply-To: from "Leeuw van der, Tim" at May 28, 2001 10:19:01 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: From: Alan Cox Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > But the claim was that 2.4.5-ac2 is faster than 2.4.5 plain, so which > changes are in 2.4.5-ac2 that would make it faster than 2.4.5 plain? Also, I > don't know if 2.4.5-ac1 is as fast as 2.4.5-ac2 for Fabio. If not, then it's > a change in the 2.4.5-ac2 changelog. If it is as fast, it is one of the > changes in the 2.4.5-ac1 changelog. ac1 to ac2 backs out some of the bits of old VM cruft. ac2 doesnt really add much that is VM relevant but it might be the user has a VIA chipset box in which case -ac will be faster for other reasons