From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 12 15:01:22 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 230B416A4CE; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 15:01:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from n33.kp.t-systems-sfr.com (n33.kp.t-systems-sfr.com [129.247.16.33]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3076843D1D; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 15:01:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from harti@freebsd.org) Received: from n81.sp.op.dlr.de (n81g.sp.op.dlr.de [129.247.163.1]) iACF0oU258486; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:00:50 +0100 Received: from zeus.nt.op.dlr.de (zeus.nt.op.dlr.de [129.247.173.3]) iACF0oI347296; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:00:50 +0100 Received: from beagle.kn.op.dlr.de (opkndnwsbsd178 [129.247.173.178]) by zeus.nt.op.dlr.de (8.11.7+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id iACF1Nu29957; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:01:23 +0100 (MET) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:02:01 +0100 (CET) From: Harti Brandt X-X-Sender: brandt@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de To: Poul-Henning Kamp In-Reply-To: <6857.1100271323@critter.freebsd.dk> Message-ID: <20041112160137.X42945@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> References: <6857.1100271323@critter.freebsd.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: Alexander@Leidinger.net 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 Reply-To: Harti Brandt 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 15:01:22 -0000 On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: PK>In message <1100269107.4194c6330d578@netchild.homeip.net>, Alexander@Leidinger. PK>net writes: PK>>Zitat von Poul-Henning Kamp : PK>> PK>>> At the very least, do not commit your patch until you have managed PK>>> to come up with at least one instance of real world data where it PK>>> is a good idea. PK>> PK>>I followed the discussion so far, but I may have failed to see the obvious... PK>> PK>>What happens if "make -j X" runs in a situation where portupgrade gets PK>>called (e.g. a Makefile which runs some portupgrades in parallel for PK>>a set of ports (without overlapping in the dependency graph))? PK>> PK>>I assume from the discussion that the make which gets invoked by PK>>portupgrade (without -j) will connect to the FIFO and attempt to build PK>>some targets in parallel. Is this correct? PK>> PK>>If yes: we have some ports which aren't -j safe, so this would violate PK>>POLA. PK> PK>That is what "make -B" is for. Or .NOTPARALLEL harti