Re: [PATCH 3/3] Avoid doing extra 'lstat()'s for d_type if we have an up-to-date cache entry
From: Junio C Hamano <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:47:02
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2016-06-15 · [PATCH 3/3] Avoid doing extra 'lstat()'s for d_type if we have an up-to-date cache entry · Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [PATCH 3/3] Avoid doing extra 'lstat()'s for d_type if we have an up-to-date cache entry · Dmitry Potapov <hidden>
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [PATCH 3/3] Avoid doing extra 'lstat()'s for d_type if we have an up-to-date cache entry · Junio C Hamano <hidden>
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [PATCH 3/3] Avoid doing extra 'lstat()'s for d_type if we have an up-to-date cache entry · Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
- 2016-06-15 · Re: [PATCH 3/3] Avoid doing extra 'lstat()'s for d_type if we have an up-to-date cache entry · Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Linus Torvalds [off-list ref] writes:
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 19:31:49 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 3/3] Avoid doing extra 'lstat()'s for d_type if we have an up-to-date cache entry On filesystems without d_type, we can look at the cache entry first. Doing an lstat() can be expensive.
Thanks. I was wondering if we could also say that D exists as a directory when we know there is D/F in the index and is up to date.