X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <43C9AF7B.5000601@earthlink.net> Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:12:11 -0500 From: Paul McFerrin Reply-To: pmcferrin AT att DOT net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Stat(2) trigger on-demand virus scan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Brett Serkez wrote: [snip] > >> From what I've been seeing, I'm starting to suspect that the problem(s) > > is > there in both cases, the scanner simply makes it much more noticable. I > do see more CPU consumption that I woud have expected even without the > virus scanner and the original poster's calling out stat was most > interesting. > Interesting observation...... I just assummed it was the stat(2) call since the only thing I was doing was a "find ... >file". I know that find (or at least the SysV version) does a readdir(3) syscall and I just totally ignored it. Even it it was readdir(3), MS should not be triggering on-demand scanner hooks for directory-only operations. -paul -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/