r8126: - moved to 16 byte alignment for talloc. This is in response to a bug

  report from robert collins.

- updated talloc guide to reflect the fact that over the last few
  months talloc overhead compared to malloc has dropped, probably due
  to a bunch of small changes. It now costs about 4% more than malloc
  on my box
(This used to be commit 689a9ccf91f9de560a500787d85321abe096b948)

1 files changed, 1 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/source4/lib/talloc/talloc_guide.txt b/source4/lib/talloc/talloc_guide.txt
index 7477dad266..13ceae9d82 100644
--- a/source4/lib/talloc/talloc_guide.txt
+++ b/source4/lib/talloc/talloc_guide.txt
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ Performance
 All the additional features of talloc() over malloc() do come at a
 price. We have a simple performance test in Samba4 that measures
 talloc() versus malloc() performance, and it seems that talloc() is
-about 10% slower than malloc() on my x86 Debian Linux box. For Samba,
+about 4% slower than malloc() on my x86 Debian Linux box. For Samba,
 the great reduction in code complexity that we get by using talloc
 makes this worthwhile, especially as the total overhead of
 talloc/malloc in Samba is already quite small.