Latent bug in the new tradindexed code?

[Russ Allbery]

Katsuhiro Kondou <Katsuhiro_Kondou at isc.org> writes:

> I'd want to avoid further data copying at nnrpd, and this is why I wrote
> such API.

Do you have a feel for how much it's saving in terms of time?  I have a
sneaking suspicion that it might actually be pretty noticable, but I
haven't done any performance metrics.

The more I think about it, the more I think that the current tradindexed
declaration is okay, even though it's not strictly correct.  I think the
only case where you get into trouble with the current declaration is if
you're using the cache, and the cache is disabled for read-only access
(it's only used for writing).

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

    Please send questions to the list rather than mailing me directly.
     <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/questions.html> explains why.