From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DE543858C2C for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2023 21:21:06 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 3DE543858C2C Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1685654465; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=9CGMiKK89wXV9KHmctkFrWMS9t8Uykvp6j/vSDflnC8=; b=JWcmq2KlLWK2iFX9OLKm+sBiEuP/vIJNgQkvK1+7NOtnRpBPGsxjShoJQxDNYsk+6ACyaa gFua5wxcMZs3Gzry+PFS3Lrty9uvQ6Fb4f2Y8ZE6wwCr7sdnbD8QsrWkzPojTH+KOe8WbU RB1sr67lRcBzmPezWlOxJvj97Gc1EaQ= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-38-iywmgzkLNe2xgCiA67BslQ-1; Thu, 01 Jun 2023 17:21:02 -0400 X-MC-Unique: iywmgzkLNe2xgCiA67BslQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DE403802142; Thu, 1 Jun 2023 21:21:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.22.8.11]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F323112132C; Thu, 1 Jun 2023 21:21:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fche by redhat.com with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1q4pjB-0001Ug-F5; Thu, 01 Jun 2023 17:21:01 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2023 17:21:01 -0400 From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" To: Daniel Thornburgh Cc: elfutils-devel@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Local Build ID Directory Lookup (DEBUGINFOD_LOCAL_PATH) Message-ID: <20230601212101.GA3687@redhat.com> References: <20230531223555.GC26841@redhat.com> <20230601145810.GH26841@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.0 (2019-05-25) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.3 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Hi - > Hmm, how would the effective behavior of this differ from directly > returning the path? The symlink could become invalid at any time [...] Effective behaviour is about the same, but code logic and explanation is simpler. > It would make sense if the cache were made to contain a hard link to the > file if it were on the same filesystem as the cache [...] And this could be a QoI implementation detail: prefer hardlink, fall back to symlink. - FChE