Hi, On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Johannes Sixt wrote: > Kjetil Barvik schrieb: > > And, yes, since each lstat() call cost approximately 44 microseconds > > compared to 12-16 for each lstat() on my Linux box, there was a little > ^^^^^^^ fstat()? > > performance gain from this patch. > > This does look like a good gain. But do you have hard numbers that back > the claim? > > If you can squeeze out a 10% improvement on Linux with this patch, we > should take it, and if it turns out that it doesn't work on Windows, we > could trivially throw in an #ifdef MINGW (or even #ifdef WIN32 if Cygwin > is affected, too) that skips the fstat() optimization. Of course, what we _really_ would do is to provide a flag, say, FSTAT_UNRELIABLE and test for _that_ (after defining it in the Makefile for the appropriate platforms). Ciao, Dscho -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
