Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 17:52:15 +0100 From: Hartmut Brandt <hartmut.brandt@dlr.de> To: "Simon L. Nielsen" <simon@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, Ceri Davies <ceri@submonkey.net>, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc/periodic/security 100.chksetuid Message-ID: <47A49FBF.2010301@dlr.de> In-Reply-To: <20080202160451.GD11904@zaphod.nitro.dk> References: <200802021227.m12CRcZ9008161@repoman.freebsd.org> <20080202145321.GH6064@submonkey.net> <20080202160451.GD11904@zaphod.nitro.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Simon L. Nielsen wrote:
> On 2008.02.02 14:53:21 +0000, Ceri Davies wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 12:27:38PM +0000, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
>>> des 2008-02-02 12:27:38 UTC
>>>
>>> FreeBSD src repository
>>>
>>> Modified files:
>>> etc/periodic/security 100.chksetuid
>>> Log:
>>> Rewrite to consume significantly less memory, by using find -s instead of
>>> find | sort. As a bonus, this simplifies the logic considerably. Also
>>> remove the bogus "overruning the args to ls" comment and the corresponding
>>> "-n 20" argument to xargs; the whole point with xargs is precisely that it
>>> knows how large the argument list can safely get.
>> Why use xargs at all? The "-exec ls -liTd {} +" primary would do the
>> same thing.
>
> You would end up executing ls a lot more times with the extra overhead
> for fork() etc. per file.
>
I think "-exec ... {} +" collects as much arguments before executing
just as xargs does. This is different from "-exec ... {} ;" which execs
for each argument.
harti
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47A49FBF.2010301>