Re: Yet another base64 patch
- From
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
- Date
- Apr 14, 2005, 08:17 UTC
- Message-ID
- <Pine.LNX.4.58.0504140114260.7211@ppc970.osdl.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <425DEF64.60108@zytor.com>
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Show 8 quoted lines
> > Checking out the total kernel tree (time checkout-cache -a into an empty > directory): > > Cache cold Cache hot > stock 3:46.95 19.95 > base64 5:56.20 23.74 > flat 2:44.13 15.68
So why is "base64" worse than the stock one?
As mentioned, the "flat" version may be faster, but it really isn't an option. 32000 objects is peanuts. Any respectable source tree may hit that in a short time, and will break in horrible ways on many Linux filesystems.
So you need at least a single level of subdirectory.
What I don't get is why the stock hex version would be better than base64.
I like the result, I just don't _understand_ it.
Linus