From: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id: <199807281503.RAA18204@father.ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: A call to `sync' inside `spawn'
To: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 17:03:29 +0200 (MET DST)
Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com (DJGPP-WORKERS)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980728110639.4133N-100000@is> from Eli Zaretskii at "Jul 28, 98 11:07:05 am"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

According to Eli Zaretskii:
> 
> On Mon, 27 Jul 1998, Martin Str|mberg wrote:
> 
> > And sync on my machine (Linux) doesn't take several seconds. Less than
> > one, actually, and it's not idle.
> 
> One second is also a lot.  You don't want to waste that much on each
> fork/exec, do you?

Of course not. I haven't question the patch as such. It's good. But I
was thinking there's room for improvement regarding sync. 

> > How about "smartdrv/s"?
> 
> You mean `smartdrv /c', right?  (/s only shows the status, IIRC.)

Yes, sorry.

> AFAIK, /c does the same as our `_flush_disk_cache' does.  And the
> problem is not to find a way to do this with SmartDrv, it's how to do
> it with *any* type of cache.

Ok.


Silence,

							MartinS