Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/1] cygwin: Remove the Win32 l/stat() functions

2013-07-11 Thread Ramsay Jones
Torsten Bögershausen wrote: > On 30.06.13 19:28, Ramsay Jones wrote: [ ... ] >>> You have just described my second patch! :D >> Unfortunately, I have not had any time to work on the patch this weekend. >> However, despite the patch being a bit rough around the edges, I decided >> to send it out (

Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/1] cygwin: Remove the Win32 l/stat() functions

2013-07-09 Thread Torsten Bögershausen
On 30.06.13 19:28, Ramsay Jones wrote: > Ramsay Jones wrote: >> Michael Haggerty wrote: >>> On 06/27/2013 12:35 AM, Jeff King wrote: >> [ ... ] I think Michael's assessment above is missing one thing. >>> Peff is absolutely right; for some unknown reason I was thinking of the >>> consistency c

Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/1] cygwin: Remove the Win32 l/stat() functions

2013-07-04 Thread Ramsay Jones
Junio C Hamano wrote: > I like the part that gets rid of that "get-mode-bits" but at the > same time, I find this part wanting a reasonable in-code comment. Indeed. (As I said, a bit rough around the edges ;-) > At least, with the earlier get-mode-bits, it was clear why we are > doing something s

Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/1] cygwin: Remove the Win32 l/stat() functions

2013-06-30 Thread Junio C Hamano
Ramsay Jones writes: > Ramsay Jones wrote: >> Michael Haggerty wrote: >>> On 06/27/2013 12:35 AM, Jeff King wrote: >> [ ... ] I think Michael's assessment above is missing one thing. >>> >>> Peff is absolutely right; for some unknown reason I was thinking of the >>> consistency check as havi

Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/1] cygwin: Remove the Win32 l/stat() functions

2013-06-30 Thread Ramsay Jones
Ramsay Jones wrote: > Michael Haggerty wrote: >> On 06/27/2013 12:35 AM, Jeff King wrote: > [ ... ] >>> I think Michael's assessment above is missing one thing. >> >> Peff is absolutely right; for some unknown reason I was thinking of the >> consistency check as having been already fixed. > > Well

Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/1] cygwin: Remove the Win32 l/stat() functions

2013-06-27 Thread Mark Levedahl
On 06/27/2013 06:58 PM, Ramsay Jones wrote: This is why I tried the "cygwin: Remove the Win32 l/stat() functions" patch first; I think this is the correct approach to fixing this problem (and similar *future* problems). I adamantly agree. However, since that is no longer an option, on performa

Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/1] cygwin: Remove the Win32 l/stat() functions

2013-06-27 Thread Ramsay Jones
Michael Haggerty wrote: > On 06/27/2013 12:35 AM, Jeff King wrote: [ ... ] >> I think Michael's assessment above is missing one thing. > > Peff is absolutely right; for some unknown reason I was thinking of the > consistency check as having been already fixed. Well, the "cygwin: Remove the Win32

Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/1] cygwin: Remove the Win32 l/stat() functions

2013-06-27 Thread Ramsay Jones
Torsten Bögershausen wrote: [ ... ] >>> (And have a look how to improve the core.filemode) >> >> I don't understand this (parenthetical) comment; could you >> elaborate on this. >> > This is probably wrong information: > I had in mind that cygwin sets core.filemode=false, It does, see commit c86

Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/1] cygwin: Remove the Win32 l/stat() functions

2013-06-27 Thread Ramsay Jones
Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 06:35:52PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > >> I am curious how often Cygwin gives us the false positive. If it is >> every time, then the check is not doing much good at all. Is it possible >> for you to instrument stat_validity_check to report how often it doe

Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/1] cygwin: Remove the Win32 l/stat() functions

2013-06-27 Thread Ramsay Jones
Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:45:48PM +0100, Ramsay Jones wrote: [ ... ] > I think Michael's assessment above is missing one thing. It is true that > a false positive is just a performance problem in most cases, as we > unnecessarily reload the file, thinking it has changed. > > Ho

Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/1] cygwin: Remove the Win32 l/stat() functions

2013-06-27 Thread Junio C Hamano
Jeff King writes: >> But, taking a step back, I think it is a bad idea to have an unreliable >> stat() masquerading as a real stat(). If we want to allow the use of an >> unreliable stat for certain purposes, let's have two stat() interfaces: >> >> * the true stat() (in this case I guess cygwin

Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/1] cygwin: Remove the Win32 l/stat() functions

2013-06-27 Thread Jeff King
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 07:51:57AM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: > > In theory we can drop the safety valve; it should never actually happen. > > But I'd like to keep it there for working systems. Perhaps it is worth > > doing something like this: > > > > [...#ifdef out consistency check on cygw

Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/1] cygwin: Remove the Win32 l/stat() functions

2013-06-27 Thread Torsten Bögershausen
On 2013-06-26 23.54, Ramsay Jones wrote: > Torsten Bögershausen wrote: >> On 2013-06-25 23.18, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> Johannes Sixt writes: >>> Some context: This is about a patch by Ramsay that removes the "schizophrenic lstat" hack for Cygwin. Junio, can you please queue that p

Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/1] cygwin: Remove the Win32 l/stat() functions

2013-06-26 Thread Michael Haggerty
On 06/27/2013 12:35 AM, Jeff King wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:45:48PM +0100, Ramsay Jones wrote: > >>> This patch adds some *extra* cache invalidation that was heretofore >>> missing. If stat() is broken it could >>> >>> (a) cause a false positive, resulting in some unnecessary cache >>>

Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/1] cygwin: Remove the Win32 l/stat() functions

2013-06-26 Thread Mark Levedahl
On 06/26/2013 10:19 AM, Torsten Bögershausen wrote: On 2013-06-25 23.18, Junio C Hamano wrote: Johannes Sixt writes: Some context: This is about a patch by Ramsay that removes the "schizophrenic lstat" hack for Cygwin. Junio, can you please queue that patch in pu? Sure. Thanks. First of al

Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/1] cygwin: Remove the Win32 l/stat() functions

2013-06-26 Thread Jeff King
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 06:35:52PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > I am curious how often Cygwin gives us the false positive. If it is > every time, then the check is not doing much good at all. Is it possible > for you to instrument stat_validity_check to report how often it does or > does not do anyth

Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/1] cygwin: Remove the Win32 l/stat() functions

2013-06-26 Thread Jeff King
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 10:45:48PM +0100, Ramsay Jones wrote: > > This patch adds some *extra* cache invalidation that was heretofore > > missing. If stat() is broken it could > > > > (a) cause a false positive, resulting in some unnecessary cache > > invalidation and re-reading of packed-refs,

Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/1] cygwin: Remove the Win32 l/stat() functions

2013-06-26 Thread Ramsay Jones
Michael Haggerty wrote: > On 06/25/2013 07:07 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Ramsay Jones writes: >> >>> Michael Haggerty and Jeff King have been re-vamping the reference >>> handling code. The failures noted above were provoked by patches >>> in the 'mh/ref-races' branch. At the time I wrote this p

Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/1] cygwin: Remove the Win32 l/stat() functions

2013-06-26 Thread Ramsay Jones
Junio C Hamano wrote: > Ramsay Jones writes: > >> Michael Haggerty and Jeff King have been re-vamping the reference >> handling code. The failures noted above were provoked by patches >> in the 'mh/ref-races' branch. At the time I wrote this patch, that >> branch was only included in 'pu', but I

Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/1] cygwin: Remove the Win32 l/stat() functions

2013-06-26 Thread Ramsay Jones
Torsten Bögershausen wrote: > On 2013-06-25 23.18, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Johannes Sixt writes: >> >>> Some context: This is about a patch by Ramsay that removes the >>> "schizophrenic lstat" hack for Cygwin. Junio, can you please queue that >>> patch in pu? >> >> Sure. Thanks. > > First of al

Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/1] cygwin: Remove the Win32 l/stat() functions

2013-06-26 Thread Torsten Bögershausen
On 2013-06-25 23.18, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Sixt writes: > >> Some context: This is about a patch by Ramsay that removes the >> "schizophrenic lstat" hack for Cygwin. Junio, can you please queue that >> patch in pu? > > Sure. Thanks. First of all, thanks for the work. Here some "ben

Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/1] cygwin: Remove the Win32 l/stat() functions

2013-06-25 Thread Junio C Hamano
Johannes Sixt writes: > Some context: This is about a patch by Ramsay that removes the > "schizophrenic lstat" hack for Cygwin. Junio, can you please queue that > patch in pu? Sure. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@v

Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/1] cygwin: Remove the Win32 l/stat() functions

2013-06-25 Thread Torsten Bögershausen
On 25.06.13 21:23, Johannes Sixt wrote: > Am 25.06.2013 00:10, schrieb Junio C Hamano: >> Mark Levedahl writes: >> >>> On 06/22/2013 03:38 PM, Ramsay Jones wrote: Also, apart from running the git test-suite, I have the Win32 l/stat functions disabled on all of my repos. In particular, I

Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/1] cygwin: Remove the Win32 l/stat() functions

2013-06-25 Thread Johannes Sixt
Am 25.06.2013 00:10, schrieb Junio C Hamano: > Mark Levedahl writes: > >> On 06/22/2013 03:38 PM, Ramsay Jones wrote: >>> Also, apart from running the git test-suite, I have the Win32 >>> l/stat functions disabled on all of my repos. In particular, I have >>> core.filemode set to true. (At one po