From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267090AbUBRXLd (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:11:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267095AbUBRXLd (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:11:33 -0500 Received: from dp.samba.org ([66.70.73.150]:29929 "EHLO lists.samba.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267090AbUBRXJ6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:09:58 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16435.61622.732939.135127@samba.org> Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 10:09:42 +1100 To: Linus Torvalds Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: UTF-8 and case-insensitivity In-Reply-To: References: <16433.38038.881005.468116@samba.org> <16433.47753.192288.493315@samba.org> <16434.41376.453823.260362@samba.org> <4032D893.9050508@zytor.com> <16435.55700.600584.756009@samba.org> <16435.60448.70856.791580@samba.org> X-Mailer: VM 7.18 under Emacs 21.3.1 Reply-To: tridge@samba.org From: tridge@samba.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Linus, > Why do you focus on linear directory scans? Because a large number of file operations are on filenames that don't exist. I have to *prove* they don't exist. That includes: * every file create. I have to prove there wasn't an existing file under a different case combination. * every rename. Again, I have to prove that the destination name doesn't exist. * every open of a non-existant name (*very* common, its what MS office does all the time). etc etc. If I had a single function that could quickly tell me that a file does not exist in any case combination then I would be much better off. > They simply do not happen under any reasonable IO patterns. You look up > names under the same name that they are on the disk. So the _only_ thing > that should matter is the exact match. nope, see above. The most common pattern of accesses involves doing a full directory scan on every access. > Sure, I can imaging that MS would make some benchmark to show that case, > but at that point I just don't care. It's not just "some benchmark". It's the normal use case. Cheers, Tridge