From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Feb 2 17:05:35 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84F2A16A417; Sat, 2 Feb 2008 17:05:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Hartmut.Brandt@dlr.de) Received: from smtp-1.dlr.de (smtp-1.dlr.de [195.37.61.185]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AADF13C459; Sat, 2 Feb 2008 17:05:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Hartmut.Brandt@dlr.de) Received: from [129.247.12.7] ([129.247.12.7]) by smtp-1.dlr.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 2 Feb 2008 17:52:16 +0100 Message-ID: <47A49FBF.2010301@dlr.de> Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 17:52:15 +0100 From: Hartmut Brandt Organization: German Aerospace Center User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Simon L. Nielsen" References: <200802021227.m12CRcZ9008161@repoman.freebsd.org> <20080202145321.GH6064@submonkey.net> <20080202160451.GD11904@zaphod.nitro.dk> In-Reply-To: <20080202160451.GD11904@zaphod.nitro.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Feb 2008 16:52:16.0569 (UTC) FILETIME=[F77FB290:01C865BB] Cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, Ceri Davies , cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, Dag-Erling Smorgrav , src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/etc/periodic/security 100.chksetuid X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 17:05:35 -0000 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