delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: cygwin/2010/06/05/01:24:41

X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2010 01:24:29 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Cygwin Performance and stat()
Message-ID: <20100605052429.GA4801@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f59908e84cf4de665b293eb11fa45ff9.squirrel@www.webmail.wingert.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 02:37:01PM -0700, Christopher Wingert wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 03:16:43PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
>>On 06/04/2010 03:14 PM, Christopher Wingert wrote:
>>>Agreed, I would like to make a global change, however, unless I can
>>>talk to the current maintainer of the fhandler* functions, it seems
>>>illogical for me to change them (as I have about a week of cygwin dll
>>>experience).
>>
>>You ARE talking to the maintainer of the fhandler* functions - cgf
>>knows what he's talking about, since he wrote the bulk of them.

>He is?  Holy crap, he is more helpful with his sarcasm and doubt than
>anything else.

Can't really parse that sentence.

>However, it does explains his tone, given that I am picking on his
>code.

I haven't detected any "picking on" but then I can't claim to have
written the fhandler* code anymore Corinna has rewritten most of it.  I
do know that if you want to be taken seriously you really need to send a
concrete suggestion/patch.

So far what I think I've seen is that you think caching will work
but haven't provided an explanation of how.

You've demonstrated that if you use less function calls than Cygwin
does to fill in less information than Cygwin's stat() you can make
something faster (which is what we already know git does).

And, you've said this:

"All that being said, I think the best solution is not to optimize the dll
stat(), but to do it at the executable level.  I see that Cygwin already
has some level of patches at this level, it shouldn't be too difficult to
support."

Unfortunately, I can't parse that either.

If you are not going to provide a patch, it would help if you would at
least provide specific information like filename and function and maybe
even a little pseudo-code to illustrate what you're talking about.

So far, it seems to me that you're basically thinking out loud and
expecting us to fill in the blanks.  That's not an effective way to
getting anything changed.

cgf

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019