From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Wed,  1 Jul 2009 21:54:24 -0400
From: Nathaniel W Filardo <nwf@cs.jhu.edu>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Message-ID: <20090702015424.GC25893@gradx.cs.jhu.edu>
References: <1d5d51400906281813g649a72f7v8610b0311c7de5f@mail.gmail.com>
	<dd6fe68a0906290856q3aacb3a8g86bd76ca4063114e@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="3rxX7Uty8SZY8iU1"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <dd6fe68a0906290856q3aacb3a8g86bd76ca4063114e@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Subject: Re: [9fans] when to use vac -q -d old.vac instead of simply vac
	-d	old.vac
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 12d1eb20-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025


--3rxX7Uty8SZY8iU1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 08:56:06AM -0700, Russ Cox wrote:
> Whether you use -q should have no effect on the memory usage.
> There may be a memory leak somewhere involving -q, but at
> first glance I don't see one.  Feel free to investigate.

You're right; I glitched.  The memory consumption is due to -d, not -q, of
course.  Sorry for the noise.
--nwf;

--3rxX7Uty8SZY8iU1
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkpME1AACgkQTeQabvr9Tc9o9wCeMi9SNL7vmN85BMaRo51GHAWm
kjcAn3rxmY3b7qyn1W1xt/Y8wIbAVf6i
=ze1V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--3rxX7Uty8SZY8iU1--