Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:37:25 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-Id: <7443-Tue22Apr2003103725+0300-eliz@elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <3EA43D71.F34E91EC@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> (message from Richard
	Dawe on Mon, 21 Apr 2003 19:50:25 +0100)
Subject: Re: fstat, fd_props and inventing inodes, revision 3 [PATCH]
References: <E196rAk-0007Mp-00 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <003101c30704$8dbb1ea0$0100a8c0 AT acp42g> <000a01c30708$aacbc680$0100a8c0 AT acp42g> <3EA2685E DOT 725043BC AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <8296-Sun20Apr2003135633+0300-eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il> <3EA2B7E2 DOT E83694EA AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <1858-Sun20Apr2003203205+0300-eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il> <3EA43D71 DOT F34E91EC AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 19:50:25 +0100
> From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
> > 
> >     --------N-215F46-----------------------------
> >     INT 21 u - LAN Manager Enhanced DOS - LOCAL NetUseEnum
> 
> It works fine under Windows '95, '98, 2000/XP (whichever Andrew is using). I
> expect it works under Windows NT 4 - after all, that was a "replacement" for
> LAN Manager. I expect it to work under Windows ME too.

I was worried about MS-DOS.  Can someone please boot into plain DOS,
even the one from Windows 9x, and see if the function works?

> > Btw, do we have any info on how long does it take for 5F46h to do its
> > job on a typical system?
> 
> Not very long! I add a one million iteration for loop executing
> get_shares_internal (which calls Int 21h/5F46h) to the test program for
> profiling. On my Athlon 850MHz running Windows '98 SE it sometimes took:
> 
> 6.06 seconds for 1,000,001 calls to get_shares_internal with 1 share mapped
> 12.56 seconds for 1,000,001 calls to get_shares_internal with 2 shares mapped
> 16.50 seconds for 1,000,001 calls to get_shares_internal with 4 shares mapped

Thanks for testing.

> Other times it the times were spread over 1.5s - 2.5s, 6s-7.5s. Anyway, even
> worst-case it's not very long - < 20 microseconds.

I'm not sure the time is linear with the number of iterations: Windows
could do some kind of caching to hold the results of this lookup; if
it does, the first call will account for most of the elapsed time.
Can you see if the times are indeed linear with the number of
iterations?