Messages in this thread | | | From | Rob Landley <> | Subject | Re: The return of the return of crunch time (2.5 merge candidate list 1.6) | Date | Sun, 27 Oct 2002 12:57:46 -0500 |
| |
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?
Rob
-- http://penguicon.sf.net - 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |