Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 15:55:23 +0100 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Alexander@Leidinger.net Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TEST] make -j patch [take 2] Message-ID: <6857.1100271323@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 12 Nov 2004 15:18:27 %2B0100." <1100269107.4194c6330d578@netchild.homeip.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <1100269107.4194c6330d578@netchild.homeip.net>, Alexander@Leidinger. net writes: >Zitat von Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>: > >> At the very least, do not commit your patch until you have managed >> to come up with at least one instance of real world data where it >> is a good idea. > >I followed the discussion so far, but I may have failed to see the obvious... > >What happens if "make -j X" runs in a situation where portupgrade gets >called (e.g. a Makefile which runs some portupgrades in parallel for >a set of ports (without overlapping in the dependency graph))? > >I assume from the discussion that the make which gets invoked by >portupgrade (without -j) will connect to the FIFO and attempt to build >some targets in parallel. Is this correct? > >If yes: we have some ports which aren't -j safe, so this would violate >POLA. That is what "make -B" is for. -- 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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6857.1100271323>