Subject: bug#42966:

From: Dmitry Gutov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 23:44:57 +0200

On 26.10.2020 23:02, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote:
> Dmitry Gutov <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
>> On 26.10.2020 22:13, Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote:
>>> Oops; you were talking about the other cache patch here, not my proposed
>>> patch.  Oh, well.
>>
>> Yes, it was a side investigation to clear up the irregularity in your
>> testing.
> 
> I guess we'll find out if my patch leads to performance regressions now,
> then.  :-)

Yeah, all right.

In my testing locally it's fast enough (1000 iterations is plenty).

I'd test with an actual remote host, though: when the ping is >100ms (a 
regular occurrence in my life: ping 8.8.8.8 is 73ms, though I don't 
often use Tramp), the cost of one process call would look different.

But anyway, if Michael doesn't object to this change, I definitely won't 
argue.