Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 17:27:47 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: astrodog@gmail.com, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: lockf in installworld -- not a good idea Message-ID: <20060929172657.Q74256@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20060929.091414.74722768.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20060929134332.GD4776@rambler-co.ru> <20060929144738.W70454@fledge.watson.org> <2fd864e0609290707t7e7d6e17g61a09ff5aa10ff3f@mail.gmail.com> <20060929.091414.74722768.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Warner Losh wrote: >> For what its worth.... I'd go with just stopping support for -j in >> installworld, even if things are CPU bound. > > installworld should *NEVER* be done -j. Ever. That wasn't part of the > installworld bargin when it was started. There's no point to it at all. > As such, any support to make it work should be removed with extreme > prejustice. Why on earth would you want to do installworld -j? I wouldn't doubt that it's at least marginally faster, possibly a bit faster, but I think I come down pretty firmly on the side of "let's make installworld as simple and reliable as possible" -- breaking in the middle of installworld can have messy consequences, and we should minimize the chances of that as much as possible. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060929172657.Q74256>