-Original Message-
From: Christoph Rohland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 7:54 AM
To: Rik van Riel
Cc: Jonathan George; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]';
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: 2.4.0-test10 Sluggish After Load
Hi Rik,
>On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Rik van Riel wr
-Original Message-
From: Christoph Rohland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 7:54 AM
To: Rik van Riel
Cc: Jonathan George; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]';
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: 2.4.0-test10 Sluggish After Load
Hi Rik,
On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Rik van Riel wrote
-Original Message-
From: Rik van Riel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 11:06 AM
To: Jonathan George
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: 2.4.0-test10 Sluggish After Load
On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Jonathan George wrote:
> It might be help
Gary,
Your post to the kernel mailing list is annoyingly patronizing, and _will_
get you flamed and added to kill files as a result. On the other hand
working on kernel documentation is a worthy endeavor, so I would encourage
you to try an approach which shows some respect to the people who
Matt,
It might be helpful to show the current (post crippled) results of top.
Futhermore, a list of allocated ipc resources (share memory, etc.) and open
files (lsof) would be nice.
--Jonathan--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message
Matt,
It might be helpful to show the current (post crippled) results of top.
Futhermore, a list of allocated ipc resources (share memory, etc.) and open
files (lsof) would be nice.
--Jonathan--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message
Gary,
Your post to the kernel mailing list is annoyingly patronizing, and _will_
get you flamed and added to kill files as a result. On the other hand
working on kernel documentation is a worthy endeavor, so I would encourage
you to try an approach which shows some respect to the people who
-Original Message-
From: Rik van Riel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 11:06 AM
To: Jonathan George
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: 2.4.0-test10 Sluggish After Load
On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Jonathan George wrote:
It might be helpful
>-Original Message-
>From: Alexander Viro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
[snip]
>
>No arguments here, but proposed fixes were remarkably ugly. Example:
>
>tmp = *p++;
>*q = f(tmp, *p++);
>return p;
>
>is equivalent to more idiomatic
>
>*q = f(p[0], p[1]);
>return p+2;
>
>And example with
-Original Message-
From: Ben Pfaff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Jonathan George <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> This patch has many bogus corrections where new variables were created,
but
>> the order of evaluation is already unambiguous.
>>
>> For
This patch has many bogus corrections where new variables were created, but
the order of evaluation is already unambiguous.
For example each comma separated clause in an expression is guaranteed to be
completely evaluated before the next comma separated clause Including
Assignments.
It seems as
This patch has many bogus corrections where new variables were created, but
the order of evaluation is already unambiguous.
For example each comma separated clause in an expression is guaranteed to be
completely evaluated before the next comma separated clause Including
Assignments.
It seems as
-Original Message-
From: Ben Pfaff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Jonathan George [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This patch has many bogus corrections where new variables were created,
but
the order of evaluation is already unambiguous.
For example each comma separated clause
-Original Message-
From: Alexander Viro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
[snip]
No arguments here, but proposed fixes were remarkably ugly. Example:
tmp = *p++;
*q = f(tmp, *p++);
return p;
is equivalent to more idiomatic
*q = f(p[0], p[1]);
return p+2;
And example with copying the string
>On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Oliver Xymoron wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Kiril Vidimce wrote:
>>
>> > My primary concern is whether a process can allocate more than 4 GB of
>> > memory, rather than just be able to use more than 4 GB of physical
>> > memory in the system.
>>
>> Define allocate.
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, Oliver Xymoron wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Kiril Vidimce wrote:
My primary concern is whether a process can allocate more than 4 GB of
memory, rather than just be able to use more than 4 GB of physical
memory in the system.
Define allocate. There are tricks
16 matches
Mail list logo
