On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 3:02 AM, Paul Eggert <[email protected]> wrote: > On 06/10/2012 11:30 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: >> Any objection to reverting that and adjusting the comment to match? > > Yes, as this would run afoul of bug 10877 > <http://bugs.gnu.org/10877>.
My reading of bug 10877 was as a complaint about using too small of an assumption for piped input, with the rest of the issue (using 1/16 rather than 1/8 of physmem, and coincidentally using avail/2 rather than avail) just being a side-track. So the patch applied there did not fix a verified problem. It changed a long-standing behavior in order to make a long-erroneous comment become accurate--but since there is no reason that I know of to think that the new behavior is better than the old one, I think changing the comment would have been better than changing the behavior. On the other hand the "new" behavior is already two releases old, so you could argue that reverting it entirely at this point is not particularly conservative. I do have some evidence that changing to use all of avail_mem was too aggressive, but do we have evidence one way or the other about physmem/8 versus physmem/16? Cheers, Jeff
