On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 8:03 PM Brian Theado <[email protected]> wrote:
I didn't notice these comments until just now... > The way I describe it implies two separate pieces of data (dirty counter and dirty bit) and I think that's what you mean when you say "new caching"? Yes. > I don't think perfect bookkeeping of dirty bits necessarily requires the use of caching, but I can appreciate that implementing such perfect bookkeeping might be quite difficult in a complicated code base and not worth the trouble. I am using the term "caching" loosely. The old dirtyVnodeList was a kind of temporary cache. The problems with the dirtyVnodeList were the direct cause of #1451. > I just wanted to raise the issue to make sure the trade offs were clear. The user is getting a good bargain: losing a little by getting unnecessarily prompted for saving files which are unchanged, but gaining a lot by making sure all external files are written. Exactly. I would only add that imo the new scheme is not only the *simplest *thing that could possibly work, it is, quite literally, the *only *thing that could possibly work. Edward -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leo-editor/CAMF8tS37hPmOQeGRVB44Sqf3k8mcPZyxn-0h5v7ntcdSX8A%3DVg%40mail.gmail.com.
