Re: [PATCH] "sleep 1" sleeps too little on cygwin

From: Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 18, 2006, 18:52 UTC
Message-ID: <20060118185229.GA3001@steel.home>
In-Reply-To: <7v4q41zd1t.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

Junio C Hamano, Wed, Jan 18, 2006 18:00:30 +0100:

Show 8 quoted lines

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > And where does the time lag (required for the test) come from now?
> 
> The point of the change is that it avoids to depend on the time
> lag.  The test is to make sure we catch dirty index; instead of
> timestamp difference it now uses i-num difference for that.
>

this is probable unsafe too: not all systems export inodes (the recent cygwin breakage comes to mind).