On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Aug 3 01:54, Eric Blake wrote: > > > >I'm really seeing the non-optimized cygwin cp behaviour causing bad > > > >reputation, which could be easily patched and maybe even accepted > > > >upstream. Who knows. Eric what do think? Would it be worthful to think > > > >about? > > > > I don't really want to maintain a Windows API patch, and doubt that > > Good. > > > it would be accepted upstream. Now if there were something more > > POSIX-y that we could do to speed things up, such as posix_fadvise, > > posix_fadvise can't be implemented nicely, AFAICS. The POSIX semantics > require an already opened file and the advice is given for an offset and > a length. The Windows semantics only allow to give the advice for the > whole file, and only switching between FILE_SEQUENTIAL_ONLY or "normal", > using ZwSetInformationFile. By re-opening the file using ZwOpenFile it > would also be possible to toggle the FILE_RANDOM_ACCESS flag. Still, > it's always for the whole file, not for an area giving offset and length.
Theoretically, it's possible to implement posix_fadvise only for offset=0 and length=<length-of-file>, and have it fail with EINVAL otherwise... While technically not POSIX-compliant, it would still allow for better implementation of things like copy... Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!) |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' old name: Igor Pechtchanski '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! "Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte." "But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac" -- 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/