On 5/2/06, Archaic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks for the info, Dan. I forgot to ask (and it's OT according to the subject line), but do you have some advice about testing the new syscalls, or better yet, does anyone see a need to include the new syscalls?
Maybe Greg will chime in if he's around. He's the source of that patch. I'm shooting from the hip right now, but I don't think there is much using the new syscall yet. However, the CVS coreutils is using it I think, so you could try that. In fact, this is the basis for Ulrich Drepper's initial test case here: http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/12/15/358 Here, Jim Meyering (the coreutils maintainer) seems to indicate that the rm in CVS is using the new syscalls: http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/12/16/46 Bottom line, there probably won't be a lot taking advantage of this immediately, but it would future-proof the system to take advantage of these fast, thread-safe syscalls. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
