2 ms·
So if I'm reading this patch correctly it's now writing things in blocks instead of as single bytes? Is that it? And, well, yes. Ofcourse that does wonder's fo
by josteink 10y ago
So if I'm reading this patch correctly it's now writing things in blocks instead of as single bytes? Is that it?
And, well, yes. Ofcourse that does wonder's for throughput. And I would certainly hope that someone who writes a file-system knows that.
Edit: Re-reading the patch it seems like what's being done here is taking a (failed) at attempt at writing in blocks and actually making it write in proper block-sizes. Yay C, I guess.
- TheDong 10y agoWow, somehow you managed to read the patch without reading the commit message that explains what actually changed. No, you didn't read it correctly.
- josteink 10y agoWell yes actually. The fault is completely on me. But in my defence, the code and diff is all colourful and highlighted... While the patch description is "hiding" very subtly in plain sight at the top. When someone is new to any kind of system, their eyes will follow what attracts their attention. I didn't even notice there was a commit message there until you told me. Some minor UI tweaks could probably improve that page greatly :)
- pmontra 10y agoYes, they should increase the font size of the log section. It's as simple as .log { font-size: large; } using their CSS class and their conventions for font sizes.
- kzrdude 10y agoIt's amazing how good we are at filtering information at all levels. I agree with you that the design of the page plays a large part. GitHub probably had more time & reason to optimize this.