statx probe: ENOSYS might come from a faulty FUSE driver#123928
Conversation
Do the availability check regardless of the error returned from `statx`. CC rust-lang#122079 (comment)
|
rustbot has assigned @workingjubilee. Use |
rustbot
added
O-unix
workingjubilee
left a comment
workingjubilee
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This seems fine, but I would prefer the comments be changed. Also, it genuinely seems like it might affect compiler runtime, given how many files the compiler touches, so I'm going to perf it.
| return Some(Err(err)); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Availability not checked yet. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This initial line is still relevant. Please restore it.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Availability not checked yet. | ||
| // `ENOSYS` might come from a faulty FUSE driver. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This comment only makes sense in light of the immediately previous version. Please explain it as if the reader has encountered the first time. So: Why are you starting off by mentioning ENOSYS here? Instead say something like "Syscalls can return errors from things other than the kernel per se, like a filesystem driver, so we can't assume this is relevant for all files."
|
@bors try @rust-timer queue |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-perf
|
`statx` probe: `ENOSYS` might come from a faulty FUSE driver Do the availability check regardless of the error returned from `statx`. CC rust-lang#122079 (comment)
|
☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Then it should be fine, and I'm just being paranoid, I would think. |
|
Finished benchmarking commit (48ee069): comparison URL. Overall result: no relevant changes - no action neededBenchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf. @bors rollup=never Instruction countThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Max RSS (memory usage)ResultsThis is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
CyclesResultsThis is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 677.423s -> 676.569s (-0.13%) |
rustbot
removed
the
S-waiting-on-perf
|
cool. I was in fact just being paranoid. @bors rollup=always r+ |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
...I sure did space out on my own review notes huh. Well whatever. |
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
|
Finished benchmarking commit (9db7a74): comparison URL. Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed@rustbot label: -perf-regression Instruction countThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Max RSS (memory usage)ResultsThis is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
CyclesThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 677.574s -> 677.058s (-0.08%) |
Following rust-lang/rust#123928, check whether the system supports `statx` even when the initial call returns `NOSYS`, because that can come from a faulty FUSE driver.
As requested by @workingjubilee in rust-lang#123928 (comment).
…rkingjubilee Elaborate in comment about `statx` probe As requested by `@workingjubilee` in rust-lang#123928 (comment).
Rollup merge of rust-lang#124443 - tbu-:pr_statx_enosys_comment, r=workingjubilee Elaborate in comment about `statx` probe As requested by `@workingjubilee` in rust-lang#123928 (comment).
As requested by @workingjubilee in rust-lang/rust#123928 (comment).
6 participants
Do the availability check regardless of the error returned from
statx.CC #122079 (comment)