Eric Blake wrote:
> Have we reported this to the Linux developers, along with chapter and
> verse of POSIX 2008 which shows they are non-compliant?
I've just written to lkml:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=125181054102075
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Ondřej Vašík on 8/31/2009 7:07 AM:
>> It's a shame to have to pessimize ls -i performance, even by this
>> small amount on linux-based kernels, but correctness definitely
>> trumps performance, here.
>
> Yep, it has some performance impac
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Following up on a long thread from a year ago, here's a patch
> to fix the 3.5-year-old readdir-vs-mountpoint-inode bug in ls -i.
...
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.coreutils.bugs/14020
...
> It's a shame to have to pessimize ls -i performance, even by this
> small a
Pádraig Brady wrote:
...
>> Yep, it has some performance impact...
>> checked `time ./ls -i1R /home /dev /usr /var /lib >myinodes with
>> approximate number of 31k dirs, 450k files on ext3
>>
>> and results are
>> old binary without the patch:
>> real2m5.631s
>> user0m3.012s
>> sys 0m4.
Ondřej Vašík wrote:
> Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> So there was a lot more disk access with the new binary.
>> but the NEWS suggests that should only be the case for
>> "systems with dysfunctional readdir".
>>
>> What was your system?
>
> Quite ancient system... I checked this on my old Fedora Core 6..
Pádraig Brady wrote:
> So there was a lot more disk access with the new binary.
> but the NEWS suggests that should only be the case for
> "systems with dysfunctional readdir".
>
> What was your system?
Quite ancient system... I checked this on my old Fedora Core 6...
Anyway could check with some
Ondřej Vašík wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Following up on a long thread from a year ago, here's a patch
>> to fix the 3.5-year-old readdir-vs-mountpoint-inode bug in ls -i.
>
> Checked on my system and works fine...
>
>> It's a shame to have to pessimize ls -i performance, even by this
>> smal
Ondřej Vašík wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Following up on a long thread from a year ago, here's a patch
>> to fix the 3.5-year-old readdir-vs-mountpoint-inode bug in ls -i.
>
> Checked on my system and works fine...
>
>> It's a shame to have to pessimize ls -i performance, even by this
>> small
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Following up on a long thread from a year ago, here's a patch
> to fix the 3.5-year-old readdir-vs-mountpoint-inode bug in ls -i.
Checked on my system and works fine...
> It's a shame to have to pessimize ls -i performance, even by this
> small amount on linux-based kernels,
t-7.6.
>From 3af748aa25193e8a5a8fe520cd967cfbc4d71cb8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jim Meyering
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 18:01:43 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] ls -i: print consistent inode numbers also for mount points
On most unix- and linux-based kernels, ls -i DIR_CONTAINING_MOUNT_POINT
would print the wrong in
10 matches
Mail list logo