From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nigel Cunningham Subject: Re: How git affects kernel.org performance Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 21:54:43 +1100 Message-ID: <1168599283.2744.5.camel@nigel.suspend2.net> References: <45A083F2.5000000@zytor.com> <20070107085526.GR24090@1wt.eu> <20070107011542.3496bc76.akpm@osdl.org> <20070108030555.GA7289@in.ibm.com> <20070108125819.GA32756@thunk.org> <368329554.17014@ustc.edu.cn> <20070110015739.GA26978@mail.ustc.edu.cn> <1168399249.2585.6.camel@nigel.suspend2.net> <20070110140730.GA986@mail.ustc.edu.cn> Reply-To: nigel@nigel.suspend2.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Linus Torvalds , Theodore Tso , Suparna Bhattacharya , Andrew Morton , Willy Tarreau , "H. Peter Anvin" , git@vger.kernel.org, "J.H." , Randy Dunlap , Pavel Machek , kernel list , webmaster@kernel.org, "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" X-From: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jan 12 11:55:06 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcfe-linux-ext4@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1H5K3q-0000oV-Q9 for gcfe-linux-ext4@gmane.org; Fri, 12 Jan 2007 11:55:03 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161080AbXALKy6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jan 2007 05:54:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161079AbXALKyr (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jan 2007 05:54:47 -0500 Received: from nigel.suspend2.net ([203.171.70.205]:37849 "EHLO nigel.suspend2.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161037AbXALKyp (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Jan 2007 05:54:45 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (nigel.suspend2.net [127.0.0.1]) by nigel.suspend2.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 569EDE8D42; Fri, 12 Jan 2007 21:54:43 +1100 (EST) To: Fengguang Wu In-Reply-To: <20070110140730.GA986@mail.ustc.edu.cn> X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.1 Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi. On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 22:07 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > Thanks, Nigel. > But I'm very sorry that the calculation in the patch was wrong. > > Would you give this new patch a run? Sorry for my slowness. I just did time find /usr/src | wc -l again: Without patch: 35.137, 35.104, 35.351 seconds With patch: 34.518, 34.376, 34.489 seconds So there's about .8 seconds saved. Regards, Nigel