+#if defined HAVE_SYS_VFS_H && HAVE_FSTATFS && HAVE_STRUCT_STATFS_F_TYPE
+# include <sys/statfs.h>
+/* FIXME: what about when f_type is not an integral type?
+ deal with that if/when it's encountered. */
+static bool
+fs_handles_readdir_ordered_dirents_efficiently (uintmax_t fs_type)
+{
+/* From coreutils' src/fs.h */
+#define S_MAGIC_TMPFS 0x1021994
+#define S_MAGIC_NFS 0x6969
+ switch (fs_type)
+ {
+ case S_MAGIC_TMPFS:
+ case S_MAGIC_NFS:
+ return true;
+ default:
+ return false;
+ }
+}
+
+/* Return true if it is easy to determine the file system type of the
+ current directory, and sorting dirents on inode numbers is known to
+ improve traversal performance with that type of file system. */
+static bool
+dirent_inode_sort_may_be_useful (FTS const *sp)
+{
+ struct statfs fs_buf;
+ /* Skip the sort only if we can determine efficiently
+ that it's the right thing to do. */
+ bool skip = (ISSET (FTS_CWDFD)
+ && fstatfs (sp->fts_cwd_fd, &fs_buf) == 0
+ && fs_handles_readdir_ordered_dirents_efficiently
+ (fs_buf.f_type));
+ return !skip;
+}
+#else
+static bool dirent_inode_sort_may_be_useful (FTS const *sp) { return true; }
+#endif
+
+/* A comparison function to sort on increasing inode number.
+ For some file system types, sorting either way makes a huge
+ performance difference for a directory with very many entries,
+ but sorting on increasing values is slightly better than sorting
+ on decreasing values. The difference is in the 5% range. */
+static int
+fts_compare_ino (struct _ftsent const **a, struct _ftsent const **b)
+{
+ return (a[0]->fts_statp->st_ino < b[0]->fts_statp->st_ino ? 1
+ : b[0]->fts_statp->st_ino < a[0]->fts_statp->st_ino ? -1 : 0);
+}
+