From: Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net>
To: Kjetil Barvik <barvik@broadpark.no>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC v3 7/9] write_entry(): use fstat() instead of lstat() when file is open
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 15:01:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49899FA4.2020003@viscovery.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <21073c1f3f6c2c81b26a632f495325f5e7a7de5a.1233751281.git.barvik@broadpark.no>
Kjetil Barvik schrieb:
> Currently inside write_entry() we do an lstat(path, &st) call on a
> file which have just been opened inside the exact same function. It
> should be better to call fstat(fd, &st) on the file while it is open,
> and it should be at least as fast as the lstat() method.
...
> @@ -145,6 +146,11 @@ static int write_entry(struct cache_entry *ce, char *path, const struct checkout
> }
>
> wrote = write_in_full(fd, new, size);
> + /* use fstat() only when path == ce->name */
> + if (state->refresh_cache && !to_tempfile && !state->base_dir_len) {
> + fstat(fd, &st);
> + fstat_done = 1;
> + }
> close(fd);
I've a bad gut feeling about this: It may not work as expected on Windows
because there is this statement in the documentation:
"The only guarantee about a file timestamp is that the file time is
correctly reflected when the handle that makes the change is closed."
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms724290(VS.85).aspx)
We are operating on a temporary file. It could happen that the fstat()
returns the time when the file was created, as opposed to when the
write_in_full() was completed successfully. The fstat()ed time ends up in
the index, but it can be different from what later lstat() calls report
(and the file would be regarded as modified).
I have the suspicion that the gain from this patch is minimal. Would you
mind playing it safe and drop this patch?
-- Hannes
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-04 14:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-04 12:52 [PATCH/RFC v3 0/9] git checkout: more cleanups, optimisation, less lstat() calls Kjetil Barvik
2009-02-04 12:52 ` [PATCH/RFC v3 1/9] lstat_cache(): small cleanup and optimisation Kjetil Barvik
2009-02-04 12:52 ` [PATCH/RFC v3 2/9] lstat_cache(): generalise longest_match_lstat_cache() Kjetil Barvik
2009-02-04 12:52 ` [PATCH/RFC v3 3/9] lstat_cache(): swap func(length, string) into func(string, length) Kjetil Barvik
2009-02-04 12:52 ` [PATCH/RFC v3 4/9] unlink_entry(): introduce schedule_dir_for_removal() Kjetil Barvik
2009-02-04 20:54 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-04 20:55 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-04 21:32 ` Kjetil Barvik
2009-02-04 12:52 ` [PATCH/RFC v3 5/9] create_directories(): remove some memcpy() and strchr() calls Kjetil Barvik
2009-02-04 12:52 ` [PATCH/RFC v3 6/9] write_entry(): cleanup of some duplicated code Kjetil Barvik
2009-02-04 12:53 ` [PATCH/RFC v3 7/9] write_entry(): use fstat() instead of lstat() when file is open Kjetil Barvik
2009-02-04 14:01 ` Johannes Sixt [this message]
2009-02-04 18:41 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-04 19:53 ` Kjetil Barvik
2009-02-04 20:30 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-05 8:14 ` Johannes Sixt
2009-02-05 11:03 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-02-05 17:45 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-02-06 11:06 ` Kjetil Barvik
2009-02-06 11:26 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-02-14 17:50 ` Kjetil Barvik
2009-02-04 12:53 ` [PATCH/RFC v3 8/9] show_patch_diff(): remove a call to fstat() Kjetil Barvik
2009-02-04 12:53 ` [PATCH/RFC v3 9/9] lstat_cache(): print a warning if doing ping-pong between cache types Kjetil Barvik
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2009-02-05 10:46 [PATCH/RFC v3 7/9] write_entry(): use fstat() instead of lstat() when file is open Kjetil Barvik
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=49899FA4.2020003@viscovery.net \
--to=j.sixt@viscovery.net \
--cc=barvik@broadpark.no \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).