X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 14:20:46 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Cygwin Performance and stat() Message-ID: <20100604182046.GA17385@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <20100603235944 DOT GA12167 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <20100604024422 DOT GB12167 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <78e7b77657c0cfcd63dc22ad9679bc85 DOT squirrel AT www DOT webmail DOT wingert DOT org> <20100604045807 DOT GC12167 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <2570318aabfa537bf24c8d3a55f9dcd4 DOT squirrel AT www DOT webmail DOT wingert DOT org> <4C092F96 DOT 5040800 AT cygwin DOT com> <7a1785a5f0a1d0a8956cd10e573f2e53 DOT squirrel AT www DOT webmail DOT wingert DOT org> <4C0933BD DOT 2060701 AT redhat DOT com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 10:33:47AM -0700, Christopher Wingert wrote: >Eric Blake wrote: >> [quit top-posting] > >Now you are my mom too? "too?" I don't recall any other responses from Eric to you. >> That's where you're wrong. Any patch you write that is technically >> sound and shows a measurable improvement will most likely be accepted. > >Then you shouldn't have Cygwin's front line technical spokesman saying >things such as: > >"If there was a way to make stat() faster why wouldn't it be in the >source code already?" As I've already explained, this was in response to your asking for an existing patch. >"Otherwise, I doubt that anyone outside of the cygwin developers >understands the stat() code well enough to come up with a patch." So far that statement still stands but I'll be very pleased to be proven wrong. >"But providing a variant of stat() along the lines of what you propose >above is not practical for all the reasons already stated." This is not someting that I said. That was actually Larry Hall. >"I guess it's possible that someone just doesn't want to go through the >pain of getting the patch accepted. In that case, everyone enjoy your >private cygwin stat() patches." And this was theorizing that there was a patch which was being privately disseminated. It does not in any way speak to a patch being accepted. As long as you're quoting my email you apparently missed or chose to ignore this one: On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 05:39:35PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >Otherwise, OF COURSE we'll take improvements to Cygwin if someone >provides them. That's how free software is supposed to work. That was actually a little positive, though. I shouldn't have said "take"; I should have said "consider". cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple