markg added a comment.
In https://phabricator.kde.org/D9824#191929, @rjvbb wrote: > I am going to assume you would have said so by now if the fix is not applicable to the QFSW backend because it doesn't do the same costly walk. > > > > So please MAKE your PATCH TOUCH the QFSW backend AND MEASURE THE IMPACT ON ITS PERFORMANCE > > I don't care a rat's ass if that is done in a separate patch or in this one, it just has to be done. Why do you **demand** that of him? Work together and calm down. Regarding QFSW, i personally doubt there would be any performance improvement for it. QFSW does not emit the details that inotify has. You don't know if a file get deleted, only that "something" changed. The extra overhead of checking what might have changed has some cost and i'm assuming the cost would be bigger then the benefit. (just an assumption here, i could be wrong) REPOSITORY R244 KCoreAddons REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D9824 To: mwolff, dfaure, rjvbb, #kdevelop Cc: markg, #frameworks
