Hello,
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:44:20AM +0100, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 03:06:21PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 03:25:39AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net
> > wrote:
>
> > > I still don't understand why you think that the current hardcod
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 03:06:21PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 03:25:39AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net
> wrote:
> > I still don't understand why you think that the current hardcoded
> > "descend into all directories, then match all subdirectories against
> > foo" i
Hello,
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 03:25:39AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
>
> I still don't understand why you think that the current hardcoded
> "descend into all directories, then match all subdirectories against
> foo" is more efficient than "descend into all directories matching *
> (i.e
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 10:05:04PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 11:55:48AM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote:
> > However, both this and my proposal (which you really intended), is
> > just as efficient as the original implementation. Matching PATTERN
> > under all di
Hello,
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 11:55:48AM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 12:28:28AM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 01:55:41PM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote:
>
> > > How about matching one component at a time?
> > >
> > > For instance, given
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 12:28:28AM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 01:55:41PM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 11:24:48PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> >
> > > Do you have some general idea of how multi-component pattern matching
> > > could b
Hello,
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 01:55:41PM +0200, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 11:24:48PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
>
> > Do you have some general idea of how multi-component pattern matching
> > could be implemented more efficiently than that? Some vague pointer
> > shou
Hello,
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 03:34:38PM +0200, hammy.l...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote:
>
> >> Do you have some general idea of how multi-component pattern matching
> >> could be implemented more efficiently than that? Some vague pointer
> >> shou
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Carl Fredrik Hammar wrote:
>> Do you have some general idea of how multi-component pattern matching
>> could be implemented more efficiently than that? Some vague pointer
>> should suffice for me to adapt the idea to unionfs.
>
> How about matching one componen
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 11:24:48PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> unionfs needs to explicitly enumerate the contents of a directory to
> do pattern matching in it. I cannot envision a way to do
> multi-component pattern matching without iterating all subdirectories
> of stow/ . Well, okay, th
Hello,
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 02:33:30AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 11:32:12PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
>
> > This patch makes unionfs try the pattern against the directories
> > immediately beneath stow/ , instead of doing it in the original way.
> >
> >
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 11:32:12PM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> This patch makes unionfs try the pattern against the directories
> immediately beneath stow/ , instead of doing it in the original way.
>
> Please note, however, that "*/bin" will not work anyways, because
> unionfs checks the
* stow.c ( _stow_scanstowentry): Don't iterate the subdirs of the
supplied directory; instead, check the directory itself against
the pattern.
---
Hello,
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 03:37:23AM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 12:07:18AM +0300, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> > O
13 matches
Mail list logo
