Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 11:49:46AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > >> Yeah, it's also been my take that OS-level overhead is probably going to >> matter more than those access calls, and I argued such back when I >> proposed the hook. So I'm perfectly happy to see this caching mechanism >> go. >> >> Should I re-post a v2 with your patch and my test? > > Sure, that would be fine (to be clear, I'd also be OK with your original > patch, too; it was mostly just a curiosity to me). Let's queue the correctness fix patch as-is. We can and should make the simplification as a separate step, justified with the performance numbers. Thanks.
