From: Lars Hjemli <hjemli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 08:33:36 GMT
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] CGit v0.1-pre
Message-ID: <8c5c35580612110033y4f6260c9xffeaf4457f4ead21@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612101653420.12500@woody.osdl.org>

On 12/11/06, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> wrote:
> you really want to re-check the existence after you got the lock,
> otherwise you would race with somebody else that got the lock, generated
> the data, and then unlocked (and you got the lock _after_ the data was
> generated, so now you generate it unnecessarily).

Yes, you're right. Thanks for noticing.

But this also applies to the case where the cachefile has expired,
right? In that case, after getting the lock, I have to recheck that
the cachefile is _still_ expired.

Anyway, I must say I find it rather unlikely for these cases to occur
(frequently) in real life. That would seem to imply that the caching
isn't really needed at all.

>
> As a side note: how do you release your caches?
>

Simple timeouts (time()-stat.st_mtime), depending on what kind of page
was requested. If anyone cares about invalid cache content (branch
head moving), relevant cachefiles can be deleted with an update-hook.

--