From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2F20203BD for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 17:52:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755891AbcJZRwq (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:52:46 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:51418 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754722AbcJZRwp (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:52:45 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A0B847DDF; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:52:44 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=oyhVDt9HBs83KK4q4ClepjBm/4E=; b=jlV5Xz WhuBfsyc/zLau9oZbtOAVePMgHrEDEWu/h3s8bSQ3AmtaGJlSBN0UV1vH4DN9ZnA 8CXnOAXWR0K6qvDPvLVV05dF6sT2K706py8SLGCtrjICPmilSajcTBH58WPsYx5q 2mqJek93IfXUt86A63D1F5N8Sk7V0GYzYQaV8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=fYNvnkqeJb2SjPfQ417LZWcnKnq4R/6X g1vZI9/T6sbvwM05Y5yPWvHr0CJYFqU1JN4h58CPkZrqXtCVFX3eiGyv5732VkG1 1+pU12jgx87ZYDGC2H9Uvket3mCmTtsQPHSIXEhAXryM+AATmnFSTI9gurREU7d9 s2e9I/1lc5o= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21D1347DDE; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:52:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8668647DDD; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:52:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Lars Schneider , Eric Wong , Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] sha1_file: open window into packfiles with O_CLOEXEC References: <20161025181621.4201-1-gitster@pobox.com> <20161025181621.4201-3-gitster@pobox.com> <20161026042555.neaxvnmggtcku5cc@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20161026164746.2fu57f4pji5qdtnh@sigill.intra.peff.net> Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 10:52:41 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20161026164746.2fu57f4pji5qdtnh@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Wed, 26 Oct 2016 12:47:46 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: FEFD342E-9BA4-11E6-8385-3AB77A1B28F4-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: > Of the two flags, I would say CLOEXEC is the more important one to > respect because it may actually impact correctness (e.g., leaking > descriptors to sub-processes). Whereas O_NOATIME is purely a performance > optimization. I tend to agree. > I actually wonder if it is worth carrying around the O_NOATIME hack at > all. Yes, I share the thought. We no longer have too many loose objects to matter. I do not mind flipping the order, but I'd prefer to cook the result even longer. I am tempted to suggest we take two step route: - ship 2.11 with the "atime has been there and we won't regress it" shape, while cooking the "cloexec is semantically more important" version in 'next' during the feature freeze - immediately after 2.11 merge it to 'master' for 2.12 to make sure there is no fallout.