> -----Original Message----- > From: Junio C Hamano [mailto:jch2355@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Junio C > Hamano > Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 2:35 PM > To: Ben Peart <peartben@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; benpeart@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; pclouds@xxxxxxxxx; > johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx; David Turner <David.Turner@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; > peff@xxxxxxxx; christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx; avarab@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] fsmonitor: add a performance test > > Ben Peart <peartben@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On 6/14/2017 2:36 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Ben Peart <peartben@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >>>> Having said all that, I think you are using this ONLY on windows; > >>>> perhaps it is better to drop #ifdef GIT_WINDOWS_NATIVE from all of > >>>> the above and arrange Makefile to build test-drop-cache only on > >>>> that platform, or something? > >>> > >>> I didn't find any other examples of Windows only tools. I'll update > >>> the #ifdef to properly dump the file system cache on Linux as well > >>> and only error out on other platforms. > >> > >> If this will become Windows-only, then I have no problem with > >> platform specfic typedef ;-) I have no problem with CamelCase, > >> either, as that follows the local convention on the platform (similar > >> to those in compat/* that are only for Windows). > >> > >> Having said all that. > >> > >> Another approach is to build this helper on all platforms, ... > > ... and having said all that, I think it is perfectly fine to do such a clean-up long > after the series gets more exposure to wider audiences as a follow-up patch. > Let's get the primary part that affects people's everyday use of Git right and then > worry about the test details later. > > A quick show of hands to the list audiences. How many of you guys actually > tried this series on 'pu' and checked to see its performance (and correctness ;-) > characteristics? > > Do you folks like it? Rather not have such complexity in the core part of the > system? A good first step to start adding more performance improvements? No > opinion? I have not had the chance to test the latest version out yet. The idea, broadly, seems sound, but as Ben notes in a later mail, the details are important. Since he's going to re-roll with more interesting invalidation logic, I'll wait to try it again until a new version is available.
