From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 12 10:09:13 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3D2616A4CE; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:09:13 +0000 (GMT) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1800043D55; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:09:13 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id iACA9CrZ095168; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:09:12 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Harti Brandt From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:06:54 +0100." <20041112105437.T42945@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:09:12 +0100 Message-ID: <95167.1100254152@critter.freebsd.dk> Sender: phk@critter.freebsd.dk cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TEST] make -j patch [take 2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:09:13 -0000 In message <20041112105437.T42945@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de>, Harti Brandt writes: >On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >PK>In message <20041112090905.GD41844@ip.net.ua>, Ruslan Ermilov writes: >PK> >PK>>But you don't give an opportunity to control this on a sub-make >PK>>level (that's what I ask for). >PK> >PK>Why would that be of any use ? If you run "make universe" the task >PK>at hand is to get "make universe" to complete. You should not care >PK>which partcular submake starts how many jobs when, you should only >PK>care that it works as efficient as possible. > >A new make is not necessarily a sub-make in the sense as started by >$(MAKE). A make could also be started by, for example, an awk script or >whatever running from make and who's task has not directly to do with the >top make's task. Something like: And this will get correctly detected as long as the environment variable gets passed to the submake. >I'm not sure whether automatically putting the make started by portinstall >into the same group of makes as the top make is what one wants in such >cases. Can you explain just why you think it would be beneficial to have less control with the total load ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.