BUFSIZ = 1024, still ?

[Matthew Jacob]

On 8/18/2012 2:36 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <50300540.9060906 at feral.com>, Matthew Jacob writes:
>
>> [...] that there might be a measurable
>> difference for having to copy 4K (unaligned) than 1K (unaligned) to
>> kernel space for disposition.
> Actually, as far as I'm aware, the 4K would be page-aligned by
> default due to our malloc(3) implementation.
>
>> Wasn't there just a recent discussion about running 1.x binaries?
> 1.x binaries wouldn't notice and wouldn't be able to tell
> if BUFSIZ is different in 10.x
I wasn't concerned about those specifically- I was just using this as an 
example of leaving stuff alone.

>> If you're going to talk about making a change to defaults, the default
>> MAXPHYS and DLFTPHYS have been undersized for years now.
> Indeed, but as I understand it, those require device driver changes ?
Ah, well 10.X would be an ideal time to find out!