From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 27 23:11:54 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C517016A41A for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:11:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Received: from weak.local (pointyhat.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::2b]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90C5413C4CC; Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:11:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <474CA443.4010309@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:12:03 +0100 From: Kris Kennaway User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frank Shute References: <474C3A12.9040107@gmail.com> <474C69D4.5050804@FreeBSD.org> <20071127223550.GA54215@melon.esperance-linux.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20071127223550.GA54215@melon.esperance-linux.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andy Greenwood , Aryeh Friedman , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Upper limit on make -j ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:11:54 -0000 Frank Shute wrote: > On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 08:02:44PM +0100, Kris Kennaway wrote: >> Andy Greenwood wrote: >>> Aryeh Friedman wrote: >>>> Before I file a PR I just want to know if it is worth it to file a PR >>>> for: >>>> >>>> make -j1000 buildworld buildkernel installkernel >>>> seg faulting >>>> >>> I thought that the kernel builds couldn't be built using parallel jobs, >>> that it might break something. Is that not true? >> Not true for many years. >> > >>From /usr/src/UPDATING: > > "Avoid using make -j when upgrading. From time to time in the > past there have been problems using -j with buildworld and/or > installworld. This is especially true when upgrading between > "distant" versions (eg one that cross a major release boundary > or several minor releases, or when several months have passed > on the -current branch)" > > Should this be changed then? Maybe. Kris