Shaya Potter wrote:
Here's my optimization patch (quick and dirty, looks bigger than it is, most of it is changing indenting of already existing code within if() statements I added) w/ postmark numbers. I'm a little confused as now unionfs on backing store is faster than plain backing store (albiet not many test iterations and my methodology might be suspect, any thoughts?)
just did a kernel build test (plain unionfs and my optimized version) and both return relatively the exact same binary (not exactly as each kernel build is a little different due to time stamps, but the individual .o's that I looked at by hand have the same md5sum and the System.map shows the symbols are all at exactly the same places) so relatively confident, but still have no clue why postmark is faster in optimized case than even the base file system.
_______________________________________________ unionfs mailing list [email protected] http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
