[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: The return of the return of crunch time (2.5 merge candidate list 1.6)
On Sunday 27 October 2002 09:20, Andrew Pimlott wrote:

> Example problem case (assuming a fs that stores only seconds, and a
> make that uses nanoseconds):
> - I run the "save and build" command while editing foo.c at T = 0.1.
> - foo.o is built at T = 0.2.
> - I do some read-only operations on foo.c (eg, checkin), such that
> foo.o gets flushed but foo.c stays in memory.
> - I build again. foo.o is reloaded and has timestamp T = 0, and so
> gets spuriously rebuilt.

If your system, and your disks, are so fast that they can not only finish the
build in under a second but can also flush the cache and reload it from disk
in under a second, then:

A) the spurious rebuild is still a tiny fraction of a second.
B) You're seeing a penalty for using a filesystem that's too old for your
setup. This is a configuration problem in userspace.
C) How would having ALL times rounded to a second be an improvement?


-- - Terry Pratchett, Eric Raymond, Pete Abrams, Illiad,
CmdrTaco, liquid nitrogen ice cream, and caffienated jello. Well why not?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:30    [W:0.026 / U:3.376 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site