> On May 2, 2013, 7:09 p.m., Benjamin Hindman wrote: > > Can we not do the same thing right now with find? > > Vinod Kone wrote: > I thought about it. But felt that using find(directory, "") is a hack. > Mainly because we would be relying on the implementation of 'find' to return > results in post-order walk.
But 'lsr' doesn't seem to suggest a post-order walk, it seems it is communicated through your comment: // Returns a list of directory entries (including the given directory) // recursively collected through a post-order traversal. Couldn't find() have a similar comment? - Ben ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10905/#review20092 ----------------------------------------------------------- On May 2, 2013, 6:54 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/10905/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated May 2, 2013, 6:54 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman and Ben Mahler. > > > Description > ------- > > First step in doing a rate limited gc. > > > Diffs > ----- > > third_party/libprocess/third_party/stout/include/stout/os.hpp > c71ae9ed32af2a14dc7b9b34521cb5ea6025235c > third_party/libprocess/third_party/stout/tests/os_tests.cpp > 047778d05ebbbefd85e4a163dbb6ab8445edfb7f > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10905/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > sudo ./third_party/libprocess/third_party/stout-tests --gtest_filter="*lsr*" > --verbose --gtest_repeat=1000 --gtest_break_on_failure > > > Thanks, > > Vinod Kone > >
