Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2001/09/09/12:53:47
On Sun, Sep 09, 2001 at 12:16:45PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 09, 2001 at 03:24:58PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >I did that since opening a file and getting the modification date
> >by GetFileInformationByHandle() is more costly than FindFirstFile().
> >
> >Think of the difference. Getting the modification time when opened
> >the file the first time would be cheap since the file handle is
> >already open. Getting the modification time on each file check
> >by opening the file and calling GetFileInf...() isn't that cheap
> >anymore.
>
> Yes, but we are guaranteed to be opening the file later on. The
> modification times could be stored then. I think that's what Robert
> is saying.
>
> I agree that repeatedly opening and closing the file isn't required
> when you're just checking to see if the file has been modified. However,
> when you are definitely going to be opening the file, I don't see any
> reason to use the FindFirstFile method.
Sure but that's not the case here, anyway. Checking should avoid
useless opening of a file. So just for checking the call to FindFirstFile()
is cheaper. The patch as it is now avoids even to call FindFirstFile()
for the check on the first call. The fopen("/etc/...") is done
immediately and the timestamp is changed using that open file handle
and the GetFileInformationByHandle() call. Only later tests call
FindFirstFile() and only after the etc_changed() method returns that a
change to /etc has happened.
>
> Anyway, this patch looks good. Can you check it in?
Done.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.
- Raw text -