[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:0.020 / U:49.460 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site