Re: Trim directory to search?

2013-08-02 Thread Peng Yu
> find . \( -type d -exec test -e {}/.ignore \; -prune \) -o > > will do something like what you want. But, again, it's not > efficient, since it performs one fork/exec per subdirectory. A more I think that given the current wide availability of multicore, if 'find' can take make a multi

[bug #34976] find: Failed to save working directory in order to [...]: Too many open files

2013-08-02 Thread Bernhard Voelker
Follow-up Comment #7, bug #34976 (project findutils): Rebased and amended patch sent to ML (version 3): http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-findutils/2013-08/msg2.html ___ Reply to this item at:

[bug #34976] find: Failed to save working directory in order to [...]: Too many open files

2013-08-02 Thread Bernhard Voelker
Additional Item Attachment, bug #34976 (project findutils): File name: bug34976.execdir-v3.patch Size:8 KB ___ Reply to this item at: ___ Message

[PATCH] maint: avoid overflow warning in xargs

2013-08-02 Thread Bernhard Voelker
xargs.c: In function 'xargs_do_exec': xargs.c:1274:2: warning: overflow in implicit constant conversion [-Woverflow] * xargs/xargs.c (xargs_do_exec): s/ int r;/ size_t r;/ The gnulib function safe_read returns size_t. --- xargs/xargs.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff -

Re: xargs -p operations out of order!

2013-08-02 Thread Bernhard Voelker
On 08/01/2013 12:11 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > Indeed, I think you have a real bug after all - xargs should not be > prompting for the fourth command until after it reaps the echo process > spawned by the affirmative answer to the third prompt. The fix seems to be quite easy (i.e. I didn't see any si

Re: [bug #34976] find: Failed to save working directory in order to [...]: Too many open files

2013-08-02 Thread Bernhard Voelker
On 02/03/2013 08:27 PM, Bernhard Voelker wrote: Hi James, I rebased my previous version of the patch against git HEAD, and simplified a function in the test; see attached. Have a nice day, Berny >From 8e239cf781baa4d0e42457ff4737b4518db229cb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Bernhard Voelker Date:

Re: xargs -p operations out of order!

2013-08-02 Thread Philipp Thomas
* jida...@jidanni.org (jida...@jidanni.org) [20130801 07:37]: > > "EB" == Eric Blake writes: > EB> Yes, I think your reading of POSIX shows we have a bug in xargs. > Go get em'! I mean how can anybody use the thing with all that junk > erupting in one's face in the simplest case of -p with no