* Pádraig Brady wrote on Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 12:35:05PM CET:
> --- a/doc/find.texi
> +++ b/doc/find.texi
> @@ -3521,6 +3521,15 @@ Use at most @var{max-args} arguments per command line.
> Fewer than
> option) is exceeded, unless the @samp{-x} option is given, in which
> case @code{xargs} will e
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Pádraig Brady wrote on Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 12:35:05PM CET:
>> --- a/doc/find.texi
>> +++ b/doc/find.texi
>> @@ -3521,6 +3521,15 @@ Use at most @var{max-args} arguments per command
>> line. Fewer than
>> option) is exceeded, unless the @samp{-x} option is given, in whi
On 11/04/2009 01:24 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
BTW, it wouldn't be ambiguous to the program, nor would it
be different than the existing meaning, but as you say,
users could mistakenly do -P0 when they meant -0P.
So I'll make the arg mandatory, but what to choose?
"n" is all I can come up with in m
Hi Jim,
On Sat October 31 2009 12:22:01 Jim Meyering wrote:
> I'm trying to reconcile this file system's behavior with
> fundamental assumptions about unchanging device/inode,
> and as a result am having second thoughts.
>
> What event causes the directory's stat.st_dev to change?
> Opening the d
seq 1 13 | xargs --parallel -P4
1 5 9 13
2 6 10
3 7 11
4 8 12
(Note there's no -n). Same for
seq 1 13 | xargs --parallel
on a 4-core machine. This is _by design_ rearranging files, so it
requires an option.
Right, you're not auto decreasing -n, but when we read all args and
we pass argume
Pádraig Brady wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Maybe we want a --parallel option (too bad -p is taken) for xargs that
>> forces the creation of the number of processes passed with -P or taken
>> from nproc (for example by starting "md5sum $1 $5 $9 ...", "md5sum $2 $6
>> $10 ...", etc.)?
>> That wou
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> I was thinking of an additional option that would automatically decrease
>>> -n so that the requested number of processes is started (then of course
>>> the load may not be well balanced).
>>
>> So you mean, rather than the current situation of:
>>
>> $ yes . | head -n13 |
Eric Blake wrote:
> Jim Meyering meyering.net> writes:
>
>> Rather than putting #!/usr/bin/perl on the first line,
>> start with a variant of what's recommended by "man perlrun" that
>> invokes the first "perl" program from your shell's search path.
>
> We should change the test to match. I also
