This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-developers
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Do we really need correct st_nlink count for directories?
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Eric Blake wrote:
> According to Christopher Faylor on 4/24/2008 7:11 AM:
> > > subdir counting on local drives as well? It doesn't seem to fullfil
> > > any real need anymore, it's just a performance killer.
> >
> > I thought find used it.
>
> find, and some of the coreutils, use it if it is > 1, but only as an
> optimization (correct applications should never rely on it being > 1, and thus
> have a non-optimal fallback for when it is 1). The idea of using st_nlink is
> to speed up scanning the entire directory (when all you care about is
> subdirectories, you can stop after the correct number have been seen, rather
> than continuing on to read the entire directory). But if it takes an entire
> directory read to determine a correct st_nlink, in order to avoid an entire
> directory as an optimization, then it isn't optimal. I'm all for dropping
> correct st_nlink, and using 1 instead.
Would it make sense to use 0 as the link count on directories? Unless I'm
missing something, every directory has to have at least the '.' link,
which makes 0 an obviously invalid value (that can be used to trigger the
fallback code).
Igor
--
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
|\ _,,,---,,_ pechtcha@cs.nyu.edu | igor@watson.ibm.com
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!)
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' old name: Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole
Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and study it." -- Rabbi Hillel