On Thursday 23 April 2009 15:35:20 Jim Meyering wrote: > Jim Meyering wrote: > > Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> On Friday 17 April 2009 18:28:07 James Youngman wrote: > > > > ... > > > >>> The patch itself looks good, but it might be worth leaving in a > >>> comment indicating why the optimisation should not be reintroduced... > >> > >> and/or a new test (i prefer the "and"): > >> if [ -e /proc/cpuinfo ] ; then > >> cp /proc/cpuinfo cpuinfo.cp > >> cat /proc/cpuinfo > cpuinfo.cat > >> cmp cpuinfo.cp cpuinfo.cat > >> fi > > > > Of course ;-) > > As promised, I've added a test for this below. > > > > We can't use /proc/cpuinfo, at least not precisely like that, > > because its cpu speed line can change due to frequency scaling. > > Also, that file is usually too small to trigger the failure. > > > > Here's a more complete patch, with a title and NEWS reflecting > > that I now think it's a linux kernel bug. > > I'll wait a few days before pushing, in case I learn otherwise. > > No one claims that /proc is POSIX compliant, so I'm pushing this.
wrt to stat(), sure, Linux rarely fills in the right size value. wrt to read(), i'm pretty sure /proc behavior is POSIX compliant. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
