Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 11:59:57 -0400 From: Richard Coleman <richardcoleman@mindspring.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Cc: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: bad news for bsdtar.. Message-ID: <408A8EFD.4030708@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <20040424151839.GB78817@elvis.mu.org> References: <200404231627.i3NGRcVA096244@repoman.freebsd.org> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0404231145150.6894-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <20040424085913.GA78817@elvis.mu.org> <20040424101446.GA12719@regency.nsu.ru> <20040424151839.GB78817@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alfred Perlstein wrote: > Threads are pretty portable these days, obviously making it a compile > time option could work, but then again performance would be nice and > it is _our_ tar. ;) > > Also, unless you mean 'aio' or 'another process' by > "non-blocking/async IO" then I'm pretty sure you are wrong, as there > is no other way to do this, disk based files do not really support > SIGIO (async IO) or non-blocking IO (NBIO). I think it is much more important that libarchive be clean, reliabable, and maintainable than squeeze out the last bit of performance. That better serves the goal of libarchive being embedded in everything (tar, pax, cpio, pkg_*, etc). Tim has done a great job with this so far. Richard Coleman richardcoleman@mindspring.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?408A8EFD.4030708>