From: rsbecker@nexbridge.com Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2022 23:31:00 GMT Subject: RE: ns/batch-fsync (Mon Apr 4, 2022) Message-ID: <034a01d8487c$0e067b40$2a1371c0$@nexbridge.com> In-Reply-To: <20220404232014.GA75@neerajsi-x1.localdomain> On April 4, 2022 7:20 PM, Neeraj Singh wrote: >On Mon, Apr 04, 2022 at 01:53:04PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> * ns/batch-fsync (2022-03-30) 14 commits >> - core.fsyncmethod: performance tests for batch mode >> - t/perf: add iteration setup mechanism to perf-lib >> - core.fsyncmethod: tests for batch mode >> - test-lib-functions: add parsing helpers for ls-files and ls-tree >> - core.fsync: use batch mode and sync loose objects by default on >> Windows >> - unpack-objects: use the bulk-checkin infrastructure >> - update-index: use the bulk-checkin infrastructure >> - builtin/add: add ODB transaction around add_files_to_cache >> - cache-tree: use ODB transaction around writing a tree >> - core.fsyncmethod: batched disk flushes for loose-objects >> - object-file: pass filename to fsync_or_die >> - bulk-checkin: rebrand plug/unplug APIs as 'odb transactions' >> - bulk-checkin: rename 'state' variable and separate 'plugged' >> boolean >> - Merge branch 'ns/core-fsyncmethod' into ns/batch-fsync >> >> Introduce a filesystem-dependent mechanism to optimize the way the >> bits for many loose object files are ensured to hit the disk platter. >> >> Will merge to 'next'? >> source: > >Please expect a reroll today to address the remaining issues in that thread. Does this relate to why I cannot compile with the new fsync code at 2.36.0-rc0?