On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 15:07:01 +0200 (CEST)
Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Remove the arg+env limit of MAX_ARG_PAGES by copying the strings
> >directly from the old mm into the new mm.
>
> Me wonders. Will that make the "checking for maximum length of command line
> argument
On Sunday 19 August 2007, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 09:15:22AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > What does this have to do with rm command?
> Nothing, and no more with linux development. Marc confuses shell and rm.
> (please do not follow up on this OT thread, responses to /dev/nul
On Aug 19 2007 14:39, Paolo Ornati wrote:
>> WT> Under unix, the shell resolves "*" and passes the 1 file names
>> WT> to the "rm" command. Now, execve() may fail because 1 names in
>> WT> arguments can require too much memory. That's why find and xargs
>> WT> were invented!
>>
>> It woul
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 14:31:21 +0200
Benny Amorsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "WT" == Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> WT> Under unix, the shell resolves "*" and passes the 1 file names
> WT> to the "rm" command. Now, execve() may fail because 1 names in
> WT> arguments
> "WT" == Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
WT> Under unix, the shell resolves "*" and passes the 1 file names
WT> to the "rm" command. Now, execve() may fail because 1 names in
WT> arguments can require too much memory. That's why find and xargs
WT> were invented!
It would be
On Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 09:15:22AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> Marc Perkel napsal(a):
> > Let me give you and example of the difference between
> > Linux open source world brain damaged thinking and
> > what it's like out here in the real world.
> >
> > Go to a directory with 10k files and type:
>
6 matches
Mail list logo
