Re: [RFC/PATCH] Documentation/technical/api-fswatch.txt: start with outline

2013-03-25 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Just a small heads-up for people using Emacs. 24.4 has inotify support, and magit-inotify.el [1] has already started using it. From initial impressions, I'm quite impressed with it. [1]: https://github.com/magit/magit/blob/master/contrib/magit-inotify.el -- To unsubscribe from this list: send

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Documentation/technical/api-fswatch.txt: start with outline

2013-03-25 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com wrote: Just a small heads-up for people using Emacs. 24.4 has inotify support, and magit-inotify.el [1] has already started using it. From initial impressions, I'm quite impressed with it. Have you tried it? From a

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Documentation/technical/api-fswatch.txt: start with outline

2013-03-18 Thread Thomas Rast
Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com writes: Junio C Hamano wrote: Yes, and you would need one inotify per directory but you do not have an infinite supply of outstanding inotify watch (wasn't the limit like 8k per a single uid or something?), so the daemon must be prepared to say I'll

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Documentation/technical/api-fswatch.txt: start with outline

2013-03-16 Thread Thomas Rast
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes: Karsten Blees karsten.bl...@gmail.com writes: However, AFAIK inotify doesn't work recursively, so the daemon would at least have to track the directory structure to be able to register / unregister inotify handlers as directories come and go. Yes,

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Documentation/technical/api-fswatch.txt: start with outline

2013-03-15 Thread Pete Wyckoff
gits...@pobox.com wrote on Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:38 -0700: Karsten Blees karsten.bl...@gmail.com writes: However, AFAIK inotify doesn't work recursively, so the daemon would at least have to track the directory structure to be able to register / unregister inotify handlers as directories

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Documentation/technical/api-fswatch.txt: start with outline

2013-03-14 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 2:38 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Karsten Blees karsten.bl...@gmail.com writes: However, AFAIK inotify doesn't work recursively, so the daemon would at least have to track the directory structure to be able to register / unregister inotify handlers as

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Documentation/technical/api-fswatch.txt: start with outline

2013-03-13 Thread Karsten Blees
Am 13.03.2013 02:03, schrieb Duy Nguyen: On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 6:21 AM, Karsten Blees karsten.bl...@gmail.com wrote: Hmmm...I don't see how filesystem changes since last invocation can solve the problem, or am I missing something? I think what you mean to say is that the daemon should

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Documentation/technical/api-fswatch.txt: start with outline

2013-03-13 Thread Junio C Hamano
Karsten Blees karsten.bl...@gmail.com writes: However, AFAIK inotify doesn't work recursively, so the daemon would at least have to track the directory structure to be able to register / unregister inotify handlers as directories come and go. Yes, and you would need one inotify per directory

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Documentation/technical/api-fswatch.txt: start with outline

2013-03-12 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Heiko Voigt wrote: While talking about platform independence. How about Windows? AFAIK there are no file based sockets. How about using shared memory, thats available, instead? It would greatly reduce the needed porting effort. What about the git credential helper: it uses UNIX sockets, no?

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Documentation/technical/api-fswatch.txt: start with outline

2013-03-12 Thread Erik Faye-Lund
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com wrote: Heiko Voigt wrote: While talking about platform independence. How about Windows? AFAIK there are no file based sockets. How about using shared memory, thats available, instead? It would greatly reduce the needed

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Documentation/technical/api-fswatch.txt: start with outline

2013-03-12 Thread Jeff King
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 03:13:39PM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: Heiko Voigt wrote: While talking about platform independence. How about Windows? AFAIK there are no file based sockets. How about using shared memory, thats available, instead? It would greatly reduce the needed porting

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Documentation/technical/api-fswatch.txt: start with outline

2013-03-12 Thread Karsten Blees
Am 10.03.2013 21:17, schrieb Ramkumar Ramachandra: git operations are slow on repositories with lots of files, and lots of tiny filesystem calls like lstat(), getdents(), open() are reposible for this. On the linux-2.6 repository, for instance, the numbers for git status look like this:

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Documentation/technical/api-fswatch.txt: start with outline

2013-03-12 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 6:21 AM, Karsten Blees karsten.bl...@gmail.com wrote: Hmmm...I don't see how filesystem changes since last invocation can solve the problem, or am I missing something? I think what you mean to say is that the daemon should keep track of the filesystem *state* of the

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Documentation/technical/api-fswatch.txt: start with outline

2013-03-11 Thread Heiko Voigt
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 01:47:03AM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: git operations are slow on repositories with lots of files, and lots of tiny filesystem calls like lstat(), getdents(), open() are reposible for this. On the linux-2.6 repository, for instance, the numbers for git status

[RFC/PATCH] Documentation/technical/api-fswatch.txt: start with outline

2013-03-10 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
git operations are slow on repositories with lots of files, and lots of tiny filesystem calls like lstat(), getdents(), open() are reposible for this. On the linux-2.6 repository, for instance, the numbers for git status look like this: top syscalls sorted top syscalls sorted by acc.