[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Degraded performance in cat + patch
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
Re: Degraded performance in cat + patch |
Date: |
Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:59:39 +0100 |
Pádraig Brady wrote:
> +enum { IO_BUFSIZE = 32*1024; };
> +static inline size_t
> +io_blksize (struct stat sb)
> +{
> + return MAX (IO_BUFSIZE, ST_BLKSIZE (sb));
> +}
You can also move the definition of IO_BUFSIZE into the function,
and avoid imposing that name on all who include system.h.
> version I'll push soonish
Go for it.
- Re: Degraded performance in cat + patch, (continued)
- Re: Degraded performance in cat + patch, Pádraig Brady, 2009/03/06
- Re: Degraded performance in cat + patch, Pádraig Brady, 2009/03/06
- Re: Degraded performance in cat + patch, Jim Meyering, 2009/03/06
- Re: Degraded performance in cat + patch, Pádraig Brady, 2009/03/06
- Re: Degraded performance in cat + patch, Jim Meyering, 2009/03/06
- Re: Degraded performance in cat + patch, Pádraig Brady, 2009/03/06
- Re: Degraded performance in cat + patch, Jim Meyering, 2009/03/07
- Re: Degraded performance in cat + patch, Pádraig Brady, 2009/03/11
- Re: Degraded performance in cat + patch, Jim Meyering, 2009/03/11
- Re: Degraded performance in cat + patch, Pádraig Brady, 2009/03/11
- Re: Degraded performance in cat + patch,
Jim Meyering <=