Michael Haggerty wrote: > On 06/27/2013 12:35 AM, Jeff King wrote: [ ... ] >> I think Michael's assessment above is missing one thing. > > Peff is absolutely right; for some unknown reason I was thinking of the > consistency check as having been already fixed.
Well, the "cygwin: Remove the Win32 l/stat() functions" patch *does* fix the problem. :-D It's just a pity we can't use it on performance grounds. :( >> [...#ifdef out consistency check on cygwin when lock is held...] > > Yes, this would work. > > But, taking a step back, I think it is a bad idea to have an unreliable > stat() masquerading as a real stat(). If we want to allow the use of an > unreliable stat for certain purposes, let's have two stat() interfaces: > > * the true stat() (in this case I guess cygwin's slow-but-correct > implementation) > > * some fast_but_maybe_unreliable_stat(), which would map to stat() on > most platforms but might map to the Windows stat() on cygwin when so > configured. > > By default the true stat() would always be used. It should have to be a > conscious decision, taken only in specific, vetted scenarios, to use the > unreliable stat. You have just described my second patch! :D > > For example, I can't imagine that checking the freshness of the index or > of the packed-refs file is ever going to be a bottleneck, so there is no > reason at all to use an unreliable stat() here. > > On the other hand, stat() seems definitely to be a bottleneck when > testing for changes in a 100,000 file working tree, and here occasional > mistakes might be considered acceptable. So for this purpose the > unreliable stat() might be used. I have already written the first pass at this patch, but I'm having difficulty with naming (get_cached_stat_data, get_index_stat_data, get_stat_data, ... ;-) ATB, Ramsay Jones -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
