From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 11 13:04:07 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5018D235 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 13:04:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from smithi@nimnet.asn.au) Received: from sola.nimnet.asn.au (paqi.nimnet.asn.au [115.70.110.159]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8877DA23 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 13:04:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sola.nimnet.asn.au (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id r3BD3vlk008943; Thu, 11 Apr 2013 23:03:57 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from smithi@nimnet.asn.au) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 23:03:57 +1000 (EST) From: Ian Smith To: mrboco@gmail.com Subject: Re: svn - but smaller? In-Reply-To: <88b872cf-7795-4d69-91c7-6c3107299b33@googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <20130411225319.M56386@sola.nimnet.asn.au> References: <88b872cf-7795-4d69-91c7-6c3107299b33@googlegroups.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, John Mehr X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 13:04:07 -0000 On Thu, 11 Apr 2013, mrboco@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, March 24, 2013 9:57:12 AM UTC+6, Markiyan Kushnir wrote: > > Tested svnup for a while, and I can say it does its job well, and works > > basically as I would expect, so thanks for your initiative. Although it > > appears to be quite resource greedy. Most of the time it showed > > something like: > > > > PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND > > 22270 mkushnir 1 102 0 44944K 31804K CPU0 1 6:22 97.56% a.out > > It's because of typo in the send_command() procedure. > > I've placed the patched svnup.c (0.56), the diff and two statically > linked binaries on http://ftp.ufanet.ru/pub/boco/freebsd/svnup/ > > No more CPU eating and/or strange lockups (so far). Tested both > against local and remote repository. I'm sorry, but even ignoring all of your whitespace and style(9) differences, your patch appears to go well beyond correcting a typo, which I can't spot anyway, though I'm sure John will know what it is. Care to explain a little more? Also, what advantage, in this particular case, is there in statically linking? Here it turns a 21.5K i386 binary into one of 575K. If this makes it into base, as I hope it may, that seems a little excessive? cheers, Ian