On Thu, Oct 6, 2022, 20:03 Charles-Francois Natali
wrote:
> `basic_filebuf::xsputn` would bypass the buffer when passed a chunk of
> size 1024 and above, seemingly as an optimisation.
>
> This can have a significant performance impact if the overhead of a
> `write` syscall is non-negligible, e.g.
On Thu, Oct 6, 2022, 17:56 Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > I actually just copy-pasted the header from another test, would it be
> simpler if i just removed it?
>
>
> Yes, that's probably the simplest solution, and then add a
> Signed-off-by: tag in your patch email, to state you're contributing
> it
On Thu, Oct 6, 2022, 14:29 Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Sorry for the lack of review. I've been trying to remember (and find)
> some previous discussions related to this topic, but haven't managed
> to find it yet.
>
No worries!
> The patch does look sensible (and is the same as the one attached
On Thu, Sep 22, 2022, 17:51 Charles-François Natali
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2022, 23:51 Charles-Francois Natali
> wrote:
>
>> `basic_filebuf::xsputn` would bypass the buffer when passed a chunk of
>> size 1024 and above, seemingly as an optimisation.
>>
>> This can have a significant performan
On Mon, Sep 5, 2022, 23:51 Charles-Francois Natali
wrote:
> `basic_filebuf::xsputn` would bypass the buffer when passed a chunk of
> size 1024 and above, seemingly as an optimisation.
>
> This can have a significant performance impact if the overhead of a
> `write` syscall is non-negligible, e.g.
