On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 12:45:40AM -0500, Phillip Susi wrote:
If we are talking about the conventional blocking cached read,
followed by a blocking cached write, then I think you will find that
using a buffer size of several pages ( say 32 or 64 KB ) will be
MUCH more efficient than 1024 bytes
(README says to ping if there's not been an ack of a patch after two
weeks. here i go)
This patch to today's (18 Nov 2005) coreutils CVS makes copy.c
consider both the source and destination blocksize when computing
buf_size. With this patch, src/copy.c will use the LCM of the soruce
and
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 10:07:51PM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Latham) writes:
In the time since the above thread was started, there is now an
implementation of lcm in src/system.h.
I'd rather use something more like buffer_lcm in diffutils, since it
handles
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 12:20:47PM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
It's too much for an inlined function, I think.
That's what i thought you'd say. Ok, this patch vs. today's
CVS adds buffer-lcm.h and buffer-lcm.c, adds those files to
Makefile.am, and makes copy.c call
buffer_lcm.
I left alone the
Hi
The thread here
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2003-11/msg00030.html
suggested that copy, instead of using the destination block size,
should use the LCM of the source block size and the destination block
size.
In the time since the above thread was started, there is now an
