Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 16:02:01 +0100 (CET) From: Harti Brandt <harti@freebsd.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TEST] make -j patch [take 2] Message-ID: <20041112160137.X42945@beagle.kn.op.dlr.de> In-Reply-To: <6857.1100271323@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <6857.1100271323@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>: 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041112160137.X42945>