On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Christoph Badura wrote:
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 08:34:56PM +, Alan Barrett wrote:
Modified Files:
src/usr.bin/pathchk: pathchk.1
Log Message:
Change the ironically unafe find . -print | xargs pathchk -p to
the safe find . -exec pathchk -p \{\} + in an
In article 20101110113444.ge...@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za,
Alan Barrett a...@cequrux.com wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Christoph Badura wrote:
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 08:34:56PM +, Alan Barrett wrote:
Modified Files:
src/usr.bin/pathchk: pathchk.1
Log Message:
Change the ironically
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 12:36:16PM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
The root cause of such a problem is, we don't do I/O scheduling at all.
I think that pool(9) (and pool_cache(9)) is a great tool to manage
limited resources. The way to go would be to extend it to manage
bandwidth in I/O
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:27:50AM -0600, David Young wrote:
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 12:36:16PM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
The root cause of such a problem is, we don't do I/O scheduling at all.
I think that pool(9) (and pool_cache(9)) is a great tool to manage
limited resources. The
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 01:34:02PM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
Christos seems to have made the same mistake as you, confusing -exec
... \; (which runs a separate child program for each file name) with
-exec ... + (which passes many file names to each invocation of the
child program).
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 06:19:25PM +, David Holland wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 01:34:02PM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
Christos seems to have made the same mistake as you, confusing -exec
... \; (which runs a separate child program for each file name) with
-exec ... + (which
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, David Holland wrote:
Yes, I did not know about exec {} +
Neither did I; when was it invented? Did the POSIX folks come up with
something good for a change?
I don't know when it was invented, but it's in The Open Group Base
Specifications Issue 6, a.k.a. IEEE Std
